Story  of  the  Session 


of  the 


California  Legislature 

of 

1909 

By 
Franklin   Hichborn 


The  well-being  of  the  State  requires  that  the  opponents 
to  the  machine  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  regardless 
of  party  label,  organize  the  Legislature.  But  back 
of  this  is  the  even  more  important  requirement  that 
there  be  elected  to  the  Legislature  American  citizens, 
with  the  responsibility  of  their  citizenship  upon  them, 
rather  than  partisans,  burdened,  until  their  good  pur- 
poses are  made  negative,  by  the  responsibility  of  their 
partisanship.  •  :,-..- 


San  Frd^f.isico,      ' '  *•„  '  '  *», 
Press  of  The  James  H.  Barry  Company 
1909 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

I.     Breaking  Ground 7 

II.     Organization  of  the  Senate 15 

III.  Organization  of  the  Assembly 28 

IV.  The  Machine  in  Control 37 

V.     Election  of  United  States  Senator 43 

VI.     The  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill 52 

VII.  Passage  of  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 

Bill   ." 59 

VIII.     The  Direct  Primary  Bill. ! 68 

IX.     The  Machine  Defeated  in  the  Senate 80 

X.  Fight  Over  the  Assembly  Amendments. .  .   95 

XL  Machine  Amends  Direct  Primary  Bill., .  .112 

XII     The  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 121 

XIII.  Machine  Defeats  the  Stetson  Bill 133 

XIV.  Railroad  Measures 145 

XV.  Defeat  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  Bills..  158 

XVI.  How    the    Change    of    Venue    Bill    Was 

Passed 168 

XVII.     Passage  of  the  Wheelan  Bills 178 

XVIII.     Defeat  of  the  Local  Option  Bill 184 

XIX.     Defeat  of  the  Initiative  Amendment 192 

XX.     Defeat  of  the  Anti-Japanese  Bills 202 


Chapter 

XXL 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 


Page 


The  Rule  Against  Lobbying. 217 

The  Machine  Lobbyist  at  Work 226 

Influence  of  the  San  Francisco  Delegation. 237 
Attacks    on    and    Defense    of    the    Fish 

Commission 247 

XXV.     The  Rewarding  of  the  Faithful .  .259 

XXVI.     The  Holdover  Senators 271 

XXVII.     The  Retiring  Senators 279 

XXVIII.     Conclusion    287 

Appendix 297 

Tables  of  Votes ix 

Postal  Direct  Primary xxvi 

Dr.  Montgomery's  Report xxx 

The  Anti- Japanese  Resolution xxxi 


PREFACE. 

In  writing  the  Story  of  the  Session  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909,  the  purpose  has  been,  not  only  to 
show  what  was  done  at  Sacramento  last  Winter,  but,  what 
is  by  far  more  important,  how  it  was  done.  To  this 
end,  the  several  measures  are  divided  under  three  heads, 
namely,  those  dealing  with  moral,  with  political  and 
with  industrial  issues.  Instead  of  scattering  on  all  the 
measures  introduced,  or  even  a  considerable  part  of  them, 
the  principal  issue  of  each  group,  that  which  meant  the 
most  to  The  People,  and  upon  which  the  machine  cen- 
tered its  efforts,  has  been  selected  for  detailed  considera- 
tion. On  the  score  of  the  moral  issues,  the  Anti-Race- 
track Gambling  bill  has  been  taken  as  the  most  impor- 
tant; while  the  Direct  Primary  bill  is  dealt  with  as  the 
chief  political  issue,  and  the  railroad  regulation  measures 
as  involving  the  chief  industrial  issue.  The  story  of  the 
fight  over  these  bills  is  the  story  of  the  session  of  1909. 
The  events  attending  the  passage  of  the  Anti-Racetrack 
Gambling  bill,  the  amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill, 
and  the  defeat  of  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill, 
with  the  attending  incident  of  the  passage  of  the  Wright 
Railroad  bill,  show,  as  nothing  else  can,  how  the  machine 
controls  and  manipulates  a  Legislature — and  such  is  the 
purpose  of  this  little  volume. 

The  efforts  of  justice-loving  men  to  simplify  the  crim- 
inal codes,  to  the  end  that  rich  and  poor  alike  may  have 
equal  opportunity  in  the  trial  courts — not  in  theory  alone 
but  in  fact — and  the  successful  efforts  of  the  machine  to 
block  this  reform,  have  made  detailed  consideration  of  the 
defeat  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  and  the  passage 


of  the  Wheelan  bills,  and  the  so-called  Change  of  Venue 
bill  timely.  And  the  story  of  these  measures  illustrates 
again  how  the  machine  element  defeats  the  purpose  of 
The  People,  and  overrides  what  are  the  constitutional 
rights — and  should  be  rights  in  fact — of  every  American 
citizen. 

Measures  which  involved  no  particular  contest  between 
the  good  government  and  the  machine  forces — measures 
patched  up  by  interested  parties  and  slipped  through  the 
Legislature  without  opposition  and  generally  without 
comment — although  many  of  them  of  great  importance, 
are  not  touched  upon.  The  histories  of  those  selected  for 
consideration  show  the  machine,  or  if  you  like,  the  system, 
at  its  work  of  passing  undesirable  measures,  and  of  block- 
ing the  passage  of  good  measures.  If  the  Story  of  the 
Session  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909  assist  the 
citizens  of  California  to  understand  how  this  is  done ;  if  it 
give  them  that  knowledge  of  the  weakness,  the  strength, 
the  purposes,  and  the  affiliations  of  the  Senators  and  As- 
semblymen who  sat  in  the  Legislature  of  1909,  a  knowl- 
edge of  which  the  machine  managers  have  had  hereto- 
fore a  monopoly;  if  it  point  the  way  for  a  new  method 
of  publicity  to  crush  corruption  and  to  promote  reform — 
a  way  which  others  better  prepared  for  the  work  than  I, 
may,  in  California  and  even  in  other  States,  follow — the 
labor  of  preparing  this  volume  for  the  press  will  have 
been  justified. 

FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN. 

Santa  Clara,  Cal.,  July  4,  1909. 


CHAPTER   I. 
BREAKING  GROUND. 

Although  the  Reform  Element  had  a  Majority  in  Both 
Senate  and  Assembly,  Good  Bills  Were  Defeated,  and 
Vicious  Measures  Passed — Three  Reasons  for  This: 

(1)  Reform  Element  Was  Without  Plan  of  Action, 

(2)  Was   Without  Organization;   (3)    The  Machine 
Was  Permitted  to  Organize  Both  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly. 

The  personnel  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909, 
was,  all  things  considered,  better  than  that  of  any  other 
Legislature  that  has  assembled  in  California  in  a  decade 
or  more.  There  were,  to  be  sure,  in  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  men  who  were  constantly  on  the  wrong  side 
of  every  question  affecting  the  moral,  political  or  indus- 
trial well-being  of  the  State,  but  a  majority  of  each  House 
labored  for  the  passage  of  good  laws,  laws  which  would 
not  only  silence  and  satisfy  constituents,  but  prove  effect- 
ive and  accomplish  the  purpose  for  which  they  had  been 
drawn.  Just  as  earnestly  as  they  worked  for  the  pas- 
sage of  good  laws,  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
Senate  as  well  as  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
Assembly  opposed  the  passage  of  vicious  measures,  and 
of  measures  ostensibly  introduced  to  work  needed  reform 
but  drawn  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be,  from  a  practical 
standpoint,  ineffective. 

And  yet,  regardless  of  the  purpose  of  this  majority, 


8  Breaking  Ground 

the  so-called  "Change  of  Venue"  l  bill  was  passed,  and 
the  "Judicial  Column"  bill,  intended  to  take' the  judiciary 
out  of  politics,  was  denied  passage.  The  infamous 
"Wheelan  bills,"  aimed  at  the  complication  of  the  Grand 
Jury  system,  went  through  both  Houses,  while  the  Com- 
monwealth Club  bills,  drawn  to  simplify  the  methods  of 
criminal  procedure,  were  held  up  and  eventually  de- 
feated. The  ineffective  Wright  Railroad  Regulation  bill 
became  a  law,  while  the  Stetson  Railroad  measure — 
effective  as  finally  amended — was  rejected.  The  pro- 
vision in  the  Direct  Primary  bill  for  the  selection  of 
United  States  Senators  by  State-wide  vote  was  stricken 
out,  and  the  meaningless  advisory,  district  vote  plan 
substituted. 

Certainly,  the  accomplishment  of  the  Legislature  does 
not  line  with  the  purpose  of  a  majority  of  its  members. 
The  voter  is  naturally  asking  why  the  majority  in  both 
Houses  standing  for  good  legislation  and  opposing  bad, 


1  One  of  the  best  witnesses  to  the  viciousness  of  this  measure 
is  Governor  Gillett,  surely  an  unprejudiced  observer.  In  giving 
his  reasons  for  vetoing  the  bill,  Governor  Gillett  said: 

"I  have  several  reasons  for  saying  that  I  will  veto  the  bill. 
One  reason  is  that  I  have  always  been  opposed  to  it.  When 
I  was  in  the  Senate  in  1897  I  was  against  it  and  again  in  1899 
I  fought  it  in  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Two  years  ago  I  ignored 
another  such  measure  that  had  passed  through  the  Legislature, 
so  that  I  would  not  be  living  up  to  my  policy  of  the  past  if  I 
should  sign  this  bill. 

"But  even  if  I  had  never  had  the  opportunity  to  record  my 
opposition  on  these  different  occasions,  I  should  have  vetoed  the 
bill  anyway,  because  it  is  a  vicious  bill.  The  bill  is  not  a  change 
of  venue  bill  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  It  simply  gives  the 
man  on  trial  the  right  to  disqualify  the  Judge  on  the  ground  of  bias 
on  the  slightest  pretext. 

"The  worst  feature  about  the  bill  is  that  it  grants  this  right  to 
the  accused  after  the  jury  has  been  secured.  Why,  if  the  defend- 
ant didn't  like  the  adverse  rulings  of  the  Judge  he  could  easily 
claim  bias  and  the  law  would  uphold  his  demand  for  another  Judge. 
Think  of  how  that  would  operate  in  the  Calhoun  trial  in  San  Fran- 
cisco. Such  a  law  would  cost  the  State  thousands  of  dollars.  It's 
vicious  and  I  will  not  sign  it." 


Breaking  Ground  9 

accomplished  so  little;  how  it  was  that  a  minority,  at 
practically  every  turn,  defeated  a  majority. 

There  were  three  principal  reasons  for  this  outcome. 

( 1 )  The  machine,  as  its  name  indicates,  is  a  definite 
organization,  with  recognized  leaders.     The  anti-machine 
element  was  without  organization  or  recognized  leaders. 

(2)  The  reform-advocating  majority,  except  in  the 
anti-racetrack  gambling  fight,  was  without  definite  plan 
of  action.     The  majority  was,  for  example,  for  the  pas- 
sage of  a  direct  primary  law  that  would,  first,  take  the 
control  of  politics  out  of  the  hands  of  political  bosses 
big  and  little,  and,  second,  give  the  people  of  California 
the  privilege  of  naming  their  United  States  Senators,  a 
privilege   already   enjoyed   by   the   people   of   the   more 
progressive  States  of  the  Union.     But  the  reform  ele- 
ment knew  little  or  nothing  of  the  details  of  direct  pri- 
mary legislation. 

They  were  equally  unprepared  on  other  reform  issues. 
They  recognized  the  necessity  of  passing  an  effective  rail- 
road regulation  law,  for  example,  but  had  little  or  no 
conception  of  what  the  provisions  of  the  measure  should 
be.  They  recognized  that  the  criminal  laws  cannot  be 
impartially  enforced  against  rich  and  poor  alike  until  the 
methods  of  criminal  procedure  be  simplified,  put  on  a 
common  sense  basis.  But  even  here  they  had  no  definite 
policy  and  when  told  by  machine  claquers  that  the  pro- 
posed reforms  were  revolutionary,  even  the  most  in- 
sistent of  the  reform  element  were  content  to  let  the 
simplifying  amendments  to  the  codes  die  in  committees 
or  on  the  files. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  machine  element,  even  before 


io  Breaking  Ground 

a  member  had  reached  Sacramento,  had  their  work  for 
the  session  carefully  outlined.  This  session  the  bulk  of 
the  machine's  work  was  negative ;  that  is  to  say,  with  a 
majority  in  both  houses  opposed  to  machine  policies,  the 
machine  recognized  the  difficulties  of  passing  bad  laws — 
except  by  trick — and  spent  the  session  in  amending  good 
measures  into  ineffectiveness,  or,  where  they  could,  in 
preventing  their  passage.  Down  to  a  comma  the  machine 
leaders  knew  what  they  wanted  for  a  direct  primary  law, 
for  an  anti-racetrack  gambling  law,  for  a  railroad  regula- 
tion law.  From  the  hour  the  Legislature  opened  until 
the  gavels  fell  at  the  moment  of  adjournment  the  machine 
element  labored  intelligently  and  constantly,  and  as  an 
organized  working  unit,  to  carry  its  ends.  There  were 
no  false  plays ;  no  waste  of  time  or  energy ;  every  move 
was  calculated.  By  persistent  hammering  the  organized 
machine  minority  was  able  to  wear  its  unorganized  op- 
ponents out.2 

(3-)  The  third  reason  for  the  failure  of  the  reform 
majority  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  minority  was  per- 
mitted to  organize  both  Senate  and  Assembly.  In  the 
Assembly  the  machine  element  named  the  Speaker  with- 
out serious  opposition.  The  Speaker  named  the  Assem- 
bly committees.  It  developed  at  the  test  that  the 
important  committees  of  the  Assembly  were,  generally 
speaking,  controlled  by  the  machine. 

The  Lieutenant-Governor  is,  under  the  State  Con- 
stitution, presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  under  the  title 
of  President  of  the  Senate.  But  the  Senators  elect  the 
President  pro  tern.,  who,  in  the  absence  of  the  President, 

2  Most    suggestively    shown    in    the    amendment    of    the    Direct 
Primary   bill. 


Breaking  Ground  n 

has  the  same  power  as  the  President.  The  reform  ele- 
ment, although  in  the  majority,  permitted  the  election 
of  Senator  Edward  I.  Wolfe  as  President  pro  tern. 
Wolfe  was  admittedly  leader  of  the  machine  element  in 
the  Senate.  At  critical  times  during  the  session,  the  fact 
that  both  the  President  and  President  pro  tern,  of  the 
Senate  were  friendly  to  machine  interests  gave  the  ma- 
chine great  advantage  over  its  anti-machine  opponents.3 
The  reform  majority  in  the  Senate  made  the  further 
mistake  of  leaving  the  appointment^f  the  Senate  com- 
mittees in  the  hands  of  Lieutenant-Governor  Warren 
Porter.  Governor  Porter  flaunts^his  machine  affiliations  ; 
is  evidently  proud  of  his  political  connections ;  indeed,  in 
an  address  delivered  before  the  students  of  the  University 
of  California,  Porter  advised  his  hearers  to  be  "perform- 
ers" in  politics  rather  than  "reformers."  It  was  not  at 
all  surprising,  then,  that  the  Senate  committees  were 
appointed,  not  in  the  interest  of  the  reform  element,  but 
of  the  machine.  And  yet,  the  reform  element,  being  in 
the  majority,  could  have  taken  the  appointment  of  the 
committees  out  of  Porter's  hands.  In  the  concluding 
chapter  it  will  be  shown  there  is  ample  precedent  for  such 
a  course.  But  the  reform  element  let  the  opportunity 

3  The  seriousness  of  the  mistake  made  by  the  reform  element 
in  acquiescing  in  Wolfe's  election,  was  emphasized  at  the  time  of 
the  deadlock  in  the  Senate  over  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  The 
President  of  the  Senate,  Lieutenant-Governor  Porter — and  in  his 
absence  the  President  pro  tern.,  Wolfe, — was  charged  with  the  duty 
of  calling  the  Senate  to  order.  Inasmuch  as  it  did  not  suit  the 
machine's  interests  that  the  Senate  should  be  called  to  order,  the 
Senators  were  obliged  to  sit  in  idleness  for  hours  at  a  time,  while 
the  machine  leaders  and  lobbyists  were  working  openly  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  to  force  certain  of  the  pro-primary  Senators 
to  join  the  machine  forces.  Had  the  President  pro  tern  been  one 
of  the  group  of  Senators  who  were  opposing  the  machine  he  would 
have  called  the  Senate  to  order,  thus  permitting  the  regular  work 
of  the  session  to  proceed.  See  Chapter  10,  "Fight  on  Assembly 
Amendments." 


12  Breaking  Ground 

pass,  and  Warren  Porter  named  the  committees.  Thus 
in  both  Senate  and  Assembly  the  strategic  committee 
positions  were  permitted  to  fall  into  machine  hands. 

The  importance  of  this  on  legislation  can  scarcely  be 
over-estimated.  Under  the  system  in  vogue  in  California, 
the  real  work  of  a  legislative  session  is  done  in  commit- 
tee. When  a  bill  is  introduced  in  either  House,  it  is  at 
once  referred  to  a  committee.  Until  the  committee  re- 
ports on  the  measure  no  further  action  can  be  taken. 
Thus  a  committee  <*an  prevent  the  passage  of  a  bill  by 
deliberately  neglecting  to  report  it  back  to  the  main  body. 

When  a  measure  passes  either  Senate  or  Assembly,  it 
goes  to  the  other  House,  and  is  once  again  referred  to  a 
committee.  Again  does  the  fate  of  the  bill  hang  on 
committee  action.  Thus,  every  measure  before  it  can 
pass  the  Legislature  must,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  leg- 
islation, pass  the  scrutiny  of  two  legislative  committees, 
either  one  of  which  may  delay  its  passage  or  even  deny 
Senate  or  Assembly,  or  both,  opportunity  to  act  upon  it. 

To  be  sure,  one  of  the  rules  of  the  Assembly  of  1909 
required  that  all  bills  referred  to  committees  should 
be  reported  back  within  ten  days,  while  the  Senate  rules 
provided  that  committees  must  act  on  bills  referred  to 
them  as  soon  as  "practicable,"  with  the  further  provision 
that  a  majority  vote  of  the  Senate  could  compel  a  report 
on  a  bill  at  any  time.  But  these  rules  were  employed  to 
little  advantage.  In  the  Assembly,  for  example,  the 
Commonwealth  Club  bills,  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee on  January  15,  were  not  acted  upon  by  the  com- 
mittee at  all.  These  bills,  in  spite  of  the  ten  days'  rule, 
remained  in  the  committee  sixty-seven  days.  The  Direct 


Breaking  Ground  13 

Primary  bill  was  held  up  in  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Election  Laws  from  January  8  until  February  16,  and  at 
that  late  day  came  out  of  the  committee  with  practically 
unfavorable  recommendation.  It  was  noticeable  that 
few,  if  any,  important  reform  measures  were  given  favor- 
able recommendation  by  a  Senate  committee.  Thus  the 
Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  the  Direct  Primary  bill, 
the  Local  Option  bill,  received  the  stamp  of  Senate  com- 
mittee disapproval.  They  were  returned  to  the  Senate 
with  the  recommendation  that  they  'do  not  pass.  The 
same  is  largely  true  of  the  action  of  the  Assembly  Com- 
mittees.4 

If  machine-controlled  committees  could  delay  action 
on  reform  measures,  they  could  at  the  same  time  expe- 
dite the  passage  of  bills  which  the  machine  element  fa- 
vored, or  which  had  been  amended  to  the  machine's  liking. 
Thus  the  Change  of  Venue  bill,  which  reached  the  Senate 
on  March  15,  was  returned  from  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee  the  day  following,  March  16,  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  "do  pass."  The  Wheelan  bills  reached 
the  Senate  on  March  17,  and  were  at  once  referred  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee.  The  Judiciary  Committee  that 
very  day  reported  them  back  with  favorable  recommen- 
dation. Had  they  been  delayed  in  the  committee  even 
48  hours,  their  final  passage  would  have  been  improbable. 

Curiously  enough,  the  Judiciary  Committee  was  the 
one  Senate  committee  whose  members  President  Porter 
did  not  name.  Following  a  time-honored  custom,  every 
attorney  at  law  in  the  Senate  was  made  a  member  of 

4  The  action  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals  on 
the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was  a  notable  exception  to  this. 
See  chapters  6  and  7. 


14  Breaking  Ground 

the  committee.  It  so  happened  that  ten  of  the  nineteen 
lawyers  in  the  Senate  were  on  the  side  of  reform  as 
against  machine  policies,  eight  generally  voted  with  the 
machine,  while  the  nineteenth  gave  evidence  of  being  in 
a  state  of  chronic  doubt.  This  gave  the  reform  element 
a  majority  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.  But  Pres- 
ident Porter  had  the  naming  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  and  the  order  of  the  rank  of  its  members. 
The  Lieutenant-Governor's  fine  discrimination  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  and  the 
four  ranking  members  were  counted  on  the  side  of  the 
machine. 

The  Assembly  committees  acted  quite  as  expeditiously 
on  measures  which  had  passed  the  Senate  in  a  form 
satisfactory  to  machine  interests.  Thus,  the  Wright 
Railroad  Regulation  bill,  which  reached  the  Assembly  on 
March  12,  was  reported  back  to  the  Assembly  by  the 
Assembly  Committee  on  Common  Carriers  the  day  fol- 
lowing, March  13. 

It  wTill  be  seen  that  the  reform  majority  unquestion- 
ably weakened  its  position  by  permitting  the  machine 
minority  to  organize  the  Legislature.  This  phase  of  the 
problem  which  confronts  the  State  will  be  dealt  with  in 
the  concluding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  II. 
ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SENATE. 

Anti-Machine  Republicans,  Led  Into  a  Caucus  Trap, 
Surrendered  the  Appointment  of  President  Pro  Tern., 
Secretary  and  Serge  ant -at -Arms  to  the  Machine — 
Machine  Given  the  Selection  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittees. 

In  the  light  of  the  events  of  the  session,  the  division 
between  the  machine  or  "organization"  and  anti-machine 
forces  in  the  Senate  for  purposes  of  organization  may 
be  regarded  as  follows : 

Anti-maChine — Anthony,5  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Burnett,5  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Hurd,5  Roseberry,  Rush, 
Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker  (labeled  Repub- 
licans), Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Holohan,  Mil- 
ler, Sanford  (labeled  Democrats) — 21. 

Machine — Hare,  Kennedy  (labeled  Democrats),  Bates, 
Bills,  Finn,  Hartman,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  McCart- 

5  Anthony's  vote  was  in  the  majority  of  cases  cast  on  the 
side  of  the  machine.  But  the  determined  stand  that  he  took  on 
the  Direct  Primary  bill  issue,  demonstrated  that  Anthony,  had 
the  anti-machine  forces  maintained  any  sort  of  organization,  or 
had  they  had  definite  plan  of  action,  would  have  been  found  con- 
sistently on  the  side  of  good  government.  Burnett  was  unquestion- 
ably misled  by  the  machine  leaders.  Neither  Burnett  nor  Anthony 
can  be  justly  classed  with  Hartman,  Wolfe,  Leavitt,  Bills,  etc.,  etc. 
Hurd,  who  toward  the  end  of  the  session  voted  constantly  with 
the  machine,  and  is  considered  hopeless  by  many  observers,  never- 
theless took  active  part  in  the  anti-machine  caucus  on  the  Direct 
Primary  bill,  and,  had  the  organization  of  the  Senate  been  in 
the  hands  of  the  anti-machine  element,  the  writer  firmly  believes, 
would  have  continued  with  the  reform  forces.  At  any  rate,  he 
was  available  for  any  anti-machine  movement  that  might  have 
been  started  to  organize  the  Senate.  Hurd,  like  Burnett,  will  have 
his  opportunity  in  1911.  Both  Senators  hold  over. 


16  Organization  of  Senate 

ney,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed,  Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright   (la- 
beled Republicans) — 16. 

Doubtful — Curtin  ( Democrat ) . 

Seekers  of  the  winning  side — Price  and  Welch  (la- 
beled Republicans). 

Curtin  is  put  down  as  doubtful  because,  justly  or 
unjustly,  he  was  at  the  opening  of  the  session  so  re- 
garded. But  Curtin's  record  shows  that  generally  speak- 
ing from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  session  he  voted 
with  the  anti-machine  element.  Had  the  anti-machine 
forces  made  a  determined  effort  to  organize  the  Senate 
and  demonstrated  a  strength  of  twenty-one  votes,  which 
would  have  been  enough  to  organize,  Curtin  would  cer- 
tainly have  been  with  them.  The  same  is  true  of  Welch, 
and  it  is  probably  true  of  Price.  This  would  have  given 
the  anti-machine  forces  from  twenty-two  to  twenty-four 
votes,  a  safe  margin  to  have  permitted  them  to  organize 
the  Senate  to  carry  out  anti-machine  policies. 

The  machine  claquers  will  no  doubt  point  gleefully  to 
the  fact  that  when  the  test  on  the  Railroad  Regulation 
bills  came,  Anthony,  Burnett,  Estudillo,  Hurd  and 
Walker  strayed  from  the  anti-machine  fold.  This  ob- 
jection would  have  more  weight  had  there  ever  been 
an  anti-machine  fold.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  anti- 
machine  element  in  the  Senate  from  the  day  the  session 
opened  until  it  closed  was  unorganized,  and  without  lead- 
ers or  detailed  plan  of  action. 

Admittedly  Estudillo  and  Burnett  strayed  on  the 
railroad  regulation  question,  but  they  did  so  believing 
the  absolute  rate  provided  in  the  Stetson  bill  to  be  un- 
constitutional. All  this  will  be  brought  out  in  the  chap- 


Organization  of  Senate  17 

ters  on  railroad  regulation  measures,  but  in  passing,  it 
may  be  said  that  Burnett,  in  the  closing  hours  of  the  ses- 
sion, stated  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that  he  had  voted 
against  the  Stetson  bill  and  for  the  Wright  bill  on  the 
understanding  that  a  constitutional  amendment  would  be 
passed  setting  at  rest  all  question  of  the  constitutionality 
of  the  absolute  rate.  The  machine  leaders  misled  Sena- 
tor Burnett.  Machine  votes  defeated  the  amendment. 

Anthony,  Estudillo  and  Walker  stood  out  against  the 
machine  in  the  direct  primary  fight  which  followed  the 
defeat  of  the  Stetson  bill,  and  before  the  fight  was  over, 
Burnett  had  returned  to  the  anti-machine  forces. 

The  case  of  Senator  Hurd  is  not  at  all  creditable  to 
the  machine.  But  Kurd's  instincts  and  sympathies  are 
not  those  of  Gus  Hartman,  Hare,  Wolfe  and  Leavitt. 
Had  the  anti-machine  forces  had  even  semblance  of  or- 
ganization there  would  have  been  no  straying,  and  the 
accomplishment  of  the  legislative  session  of  1909  would 
have  been  more  satisfactory  to  the  best  citizenship  of 
the  State. 

The  fact  that  the  anti-machine  forces,  without  lead- 
ers and  without  organization,  stuck  together  so  well  as 
they  did  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  and  at  the  same 
time  encouraging  features  of  the  session. 

Although  the  anti-machine  forces  numbered  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Senate,  nevertheless  a  bare  majority  of  the 
regular  Republican  Senators — those  who  were  eligible 
to  admittance  to  the  Republican  caucus — were  with  the 
machine.  The  division  in  the  Republican  caucus,  count- 
ing Welch  and  Price  with  the  machine  element,  was 
on  machine  and  anti-machine  lines  as  follows: 


1 8  Organization  of  Senate 

Anti-machine—Anthony,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Burnett,  Cutten,  Estttdillo,  Hurd,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stet- 
son, Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker — 14. 

Machine — Bates,  Bills,  Finn,  Hartman,  Leavitt,  Lewis, 
Martinelli,  McCartney,  Price,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed, 
Welch,  Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright— 16. 

By  time-honored  custom  it  has  become  a  rule  for 
the  majority  5a  in  the  Senate — and  the  same  holds  in  the 
Assembly — to  meet  in  caucus  to  decide  upon  the  details 
of  organization.  This  is  done  on  the  theory  that  the 
House  should  be  so  organized  as  to  permit  the  major- 
ity to  carry  out  its  policies  as  expeditiously  and  with  as 
little  friction  as  possible.  By  the  unwritten  rule  of  the 
caucus,  the  majority  governs  and  each  member  who  at- 
tends the  caucus  is  bound  in  honor  to  vote — regardless 
of  his  individual  views  or  wishes — on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  or  Assembly,  as  the  majority  of  the  caucus  de- 
cides. Thus,  by  going  into  caucus  with  the  sixteen  ma- 
chine Senators,  the  fourteen  anti-machine  Senators  were 
placed  in  a  position  where  they  were,  under  caucus  rule, 
compelled  to  vote  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  the 
sixteen  machine  Senators  dictated.  This  gave  the  ma- 
chine on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  thirty  votes  out  of 
forty  on  questions  affecting  organization,  and  permitted 
it  to  name  the  President  pro  tern.,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and  gave  it  final  voice  in 
the  appointment  of  the  various  attaches. 

5a  In  this  instance,  the  Republican  Senators.  The  Senate 
minority  was  made  up  of  the  Democratic  Senators,  if  we  make 
the  division  on  party  lines.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  it 
came  to  the  real  business  of  the  session,  the  Senate  did  not  divide 
on  party  lines.  The  actual  division  was  between  the  machine  and 
the  anti-machine  Senators.  Thus  the  real  majority  consisted  of 
anti-machine  Senators,  and  the  minority  of  the  Senators  controlled 
by  the  machine. 


Organization  of  Senate  19 

Had  the  line  of  division  in  the  Senate  been  Republi- 
can and  Democratic,  the  Republicans  in  the  Senate  might 
very  properly  have  caucused.  But  inasmuch  as  the  ma- 
chine Republicans  stood  during  the  entire  session  for 
one  set  of  policies,  and  the  anti-machine  Republicans  for 
another,  the  caucus  was  at  best  an  incongruous  affair. 
Especially  is  this  true  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
anti-machine  Republicans  immediately  after  they  had  left 
the  caucus  united  with  the  anti-machine  Democrats  in  a 
three-months  contest  with  the  united  machine  Democrats 
and  machine  Republicans.  But  having  surrendered  the 
organization  of  the  Senate  to  the  machine,  the  anti- 
machine  Senators,  although  in  the  majority,  fought  under 
a  handicap,  finally  lost  the  weaker  of  their  supporters,6 
and  in  the  end  went  down  in  defeat.  Had  the  real  ma- 
jority, rather  than  the  artificial  majority,  of  the  Senate 
caucused  on  organization,  that  is  to  say,  had  the  anti- 
machine  Republicans  and  the  anti-machine  Democrats 
caucused,  and  organized  to  carry  out  the  policies  for 
which  they  stood  and  for  which  they  fought  together 
during  the  entire  session,  the  Republican-Democratic- 
machine  element  would  have  been  defeated  at  every  turn. 
But  no  such  policy  governed,  and  the  anti-machine  Re- 
publicans waddled  after  precedent  into  the  caucus  trap 
that  had  been  set  for  them.  Later  on  in  the  session  the 
anti-machine  Republicans  and  anti-machine  Democrats 
did  go  into  caucus  together,  and  by  doing  so  won  the 
hardest  fought  fight  of  the  session.7 

In  the  Republican  Senate  caucus  on  organization,  the 
machine  Senators,  under  the  crafty  leadership  of  Wolfe 

6  Kurd's  case  illustrates  this  very  well. 

7  See  chapter  nine— Machine  defeated  in  the  Senate. 


2O  Organization  of  Senate 

and  Leavitt,  worked  their  unhappy  anti-machine  asso- 
ciates much  as  a  playful  cat,  with  a  sense  of  humor,  toys 
with  a  mouse.  As  the  cat  lets  the  mouse  think  that  it 
has  escaped,  the  machine  let  the  anti-machine  forces 
think  they  were  organizing  the  caucus.  Leavitt  had  been 
leader  of  the  Republican  caucus  at  previous  sessions,  but 
he  suffered  "overwhelming  defeat"  at  the  hands  of  a 
"reformer."  The  "reformer"  in  question  was  Senator 
Wright,  who  had  been  well  advertised  as  the  father  of 
the  reform  Direct  Primary  law.  Before  the  session 
closed,  the  anti-machine  element  was  to  learn  just  the 
sort  of  "reformer"  Wright  is.  Wright,  however,  in  the 
interest  of  "harmony,"  was  nominated  for  caucus  lead- 
ership by  Senator  Wolfe.  Leavitt's  name  was  not 
even  mentioned.  The  unanimous  vote  went  to  Senator 
Wright,  who  was  duly  declared  elected  Chairman  of  the 
Senate  Republican  caucus  for  the  Thirty-eighth  Session 
of  the  California  Legislature. 

The  reformers  were  also  permitted  to  name  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  caucus.  This  time  a  genuine  anti-machine 
Senator  was  selected,  A.  E.  Boynton. 

And  then  came  a  question  which  brought  out  the 
gleam  of  the  machine's  teeth.  Senator  Boynton  moved 
that  Senator  Bell,  of  Pasadena,  be  admitted  to  the  cau- 
cus. Somewhat  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  reformers, 
Bell  was  not  admitted. 

Senator  Bell's  case  is  a  suggestive  one.  He  is  a 
Republican,  having  been  elected  from  one  of  the  strong- 
est Republican  districts  of  the  State,  the  Thirty-sixth 
Senatorial  District,  which  takes  in  Pasadena.  But  Sen- 
ator Bell  was  not  named  by  the  machine ;  in  fact,  he  was 


Organization  of  Senate  21 

% 

elected  as  protest  against  machine  methods.  The  Pasa- 
dena Republicans  tolerated  machine  domination  as  long 
as  they  could.  Then,  in  1906,  they  induced  Bell  to  run 
against  the  "regular"  machine  nominee  for  the  State 
Senate.  Bell  ran  as  an  independent  Republican.  He 
overwhelmingly  defeated  his  machine  opponent.  Ar- 
rived at  Sacramento  at  the  session  of  1907,  he  applied 
for  admittance  to  the  Republican  caucus. 

There  was  ample  precedent  for  his  admittance,  but 
curiously  enough  no  anti-machine  Republican  who  had 
defeated  a  machine  Republican  had  ever  been  admitted 
to  caucus  privileges.  In  1902,  however,  Charles  M. 
Shortridge,  having  failed  to  receive  the  nomination  for  the 
State  Senate  from  Santa  Clara  County,  ran  as  an  inde- 
pendent candidate  against  the  regular  Republican  nomi- 
nee. The  machine  supported  Shortridge's  candidacy,  and 
by  most  questionable  methods  succeeded  in  defeating  the 
regular  Republican.  But  Shortridge  was  admitted  to 
the  Senate  caucus  of  1903  without  question.  Senator 
Bell,  however,  was  denied  admittance  to  the  Republican 
Senate  caucus  of  1907,  on  the  grounds  that  he  had  de- 
feated a  regularly  nominated  Republican.  Shortridge 
had  defeated  a  regularly  nominated  Republican.  But 
Shortridge  stood  for  machine  policies ;  Bell  stands  opposed 
to  machine  policies.  The  machine's  policy  is  to  keep  the 
caucuses  of  the  dominant  party  in  the  Legislature  as 
much  a  close  corporation  as  possible.  So  in  1907,  Bell's 
application  was  rejected.  Bell,  throughout  the  session, 
opposed  machine  policies.  Both  for  the  session  of  1907 
and  of  1909,  Senator  Bell's  record  is  absolutely  clean. 


22  Organization  of  Senate 

The  machine  does  not  approve  such  men,  nor  want  them 
to  participate  in  party  caucuses. 

Senator  Bell,  who  had,  although  refused  admittance 
to  his  party  caucus,  done  very  well  in  1907,  did  not  pro- 
pose to  apply  for  admission  to  the  caucus  of  1909.  But 
the  reform  element  in  the  Senate  insisted  upon  present- 
ing his  name.  From  machine  sources  it  was  intimated 
to  Senator  Bell  that  if  he  would  make  his  peace  with 
Walter  Parker,  the  Southern  Pacific  lobbyist  who  acts 
as  machine  leader  south  of  the  Tehachepi,  no  opposi- 
tion would  be  offered  his  admission  to  the  caucus.  Bell 
rejected  the  offer  with  characteristic  promptness.  So  the 
anti-machine  Senators,  since  they  had  "organized  the 
caucus,"  proceeded  to  admit  Bell  in  the  face  of  machine 
opposition. 

But  the  inexperienced  political  mouse  discovered  that 
it  was  not  out  of  the  reach  of  the  claws  of  the  experi- 
enced political  cat.  Boynton's  motion  to  admit  Bell  to 
the  caucus  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  16  to  14. 

Had  the  reform  element  been  organized,  however, 
Bell  would  have  been  admitted  to  the  caucus.  Three 
Senators,  Reily,  Savage  and  Welch,  who  ordinarily  voted 
with  the  machine,  because  of  personal  friendship  voted 
to  admit  Bell  to  the  caucus.  But  their  votes  were  offset 
by  those  of  Burnett,  Estudillo  and  Kurd.8  The  vote  was 
as  follows: 

To  admit  Bell  to  the  caucus — Anthony,  Birdsall,  Black, 


8  Burnett,  of  San  Francisco,  voted  against  Bell  on  partisan 
grounds,  and  inability  to  grasp  the  situation.  Estudillo's  vote  was 
inconsistent  with  the  majority  which  he  cast  during  the  session, 
while  Kurd's  was  inconsistent  with  those  which  he  cast  up  to 
the  time  of  his  vote  with  the  machine  forces  against  the  Stetson 
bill. 


Organization  of  Senate  23 

Boynton,  Cutten,  Reily,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Savage,  Stet- 
son, Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker,  Welch — 14. 

Against  admitting  Bell  to  the  caucus — Bates,  Bills, 
Burnett,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Hartman,  Kurd,  Leavitt,  Lewis, 
Martinelli,  McCartney,  Price,  Weed,  Willis,  Wolfe, 
Wright— 16. 

The  Bell  matter  out  of  the  way,  the  real  work  of 
organizing  the  Senate  was  taken  up.  Curiously  enough, 
the  only  contest  came  over  the  election  of  the  Chaplain 
of  the  Senate ;  the  naming  of  the  President  pro  tern.,  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
was  not  opposed.  Senator  Price  moved  that  Lewis  A. 
Hilborn  be  the  caucus  nominee  for  Secretary  of  the  Sen- 
ate, and  J.  Louis  Martin  for  Sergeant-at-Arms.  His 
motion  carried  unanimously.  Price  also  nominated  Sen- 
ator Wolfe  for  President  pro  tern.  Not  an  anti-machine 
Senator  protested.  Wolfe  was  accordingly  declared  the 
caucus  nominee,  with  the  thirty  Senators  present,  ma- 
chine and  anti-machine,  obligated  to  vote  for  him  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate. 

The  election  of  a  Chaplain  was  then  taken  up  and 
several  candidates  nominated  for  the  office.  Rev.  Father 
H.  H.  Wyman  being  finally  selected,  which,  of  course, 
was  equivalent  to  election. 

The  caucus  was  held  at  9  o'clock  of  the  morning  of 
January  4.  At  noon  of  the  same  day  a  second  caucus 
was  held  at  which  it  was  decided  that  the  division  of 
patronage 8a  should  be  on  the  following  basis:  That  $18 

8a  Up  to  the  session  of  1909,  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
fixed  the  amount  of  patronage.  At  the  session  of  1907,  the  pay- 
roll of  the  officers  and  attaches  of  the  Assembly  alone  ran  up  to 
nearly  $10,000  a  week,  or  more  than  $1300  a  day.  But  in  1908, 
the  people  adopted  a  constitutional  amendment  limiting  the  amount 


24  Organization  of  Senate 

a  day  should  be  set  aside  for  the  Secretary,  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  and  Chaplain ;  that  the  Lieutenant-Governor  should 
be  allowed  $22  a  day,  and  each  of  the  thirty  caucus  Sen- 
ators $15  a  day.  This  practically  concluded  Republican 
caucusing  for  the  session.  At  previous  sessions  the  Re- 
publicans caucused  practically  every  day.  But  before 
the  session  of  1909  had  advanced  far,  the  real  line  that 
divided  the  Senators,  the  line  that  separated  the  machine 
from  the  anti-machine  members,  had  become  so  pro- 
nounced that  caucuses  of  machine  and  anti-machine  Re- 
publicans became  impracticable.  Senator  Wright,  toward 
the  end  of  the  session,  made  frantic  efforts  to  get  the 
caucus  together;  but  he  failed.  The  caucus  on  organ- 
ization was  about  all  that  the  anti-machine  Republicans 
could  stand. 

As  they  had  left  the  election  of  the  officers  of  the 
Senate  to  the  machine,  the  anti-machine  element  left  the 
appointing  of  the  Senate  committees  to  the  machine 
Lieutenant-Governor.9 

How  well  the  machine,  given  the  appointment  of  the 

of  patronage,  the  money  to  be  expended  for  legislative  officers 
and  attaches,  to  $500  a  day  for  each  House.  This  cut  the  pat- 
ronage down  something  more  than  one-half,  which  gave  the  Sen- 
ators and  Assemblymen  who  divided  it  great  concern. 

The  development  of  the  patronage  scandal  during  the  last 
decade  is  interesting.  At  the  session  of  1901  the  Assembly  pat- 
ronage ran  about  $580  a  day,  the  Senate  patronage  about  $610. 
This  was  only  $80  a  day  more  in  the  Assembly,  and  $110  more 
in  the  Senate  than  the  limit  now  fixed  by  the  Constitution. 

In  1903,  the  patronage  in  the  Assembly  totaled  $6312.50  a  week, 
more  than  $900  a  day.  In  the  Senate  it  was  $5612.50,  or  $800  a 
day. 

The  increase  continued  in  1905.  In  that  year  Assembly  pat- 
ronage totaled  $7956.50  a  week,  or  $1135  a  day,  while  the  Senate 
patronage  was  $6002.50  a  week,  or  $857  a  day. 

The  climax  came  in  1907,  when  the  Assembly  patronage  went 
to  $9660.50  a  week,  or  $1350  a  day,  and  the  Senate  patronage  to 
$6893.50  a  week,  or  $985  a  day.  What  it  would  have  been  in  1909 
had  there  been  no  Constitutional  restriction  placed  upon  it,  is  a 
matter  for  speculation. 

9  See  concluding  chapter  as  to  how  this  could  have  been  avoided.  , 


Organization  of  Senate  25 

committees,  fortified  itself  is  shown  by  consideration  of 
practically  any  one  of  the  committees.  A  few  examples 
will  suffice. 

There  were,  for  example,  three  great  issues  before 
the  Legislature;  namely,  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
bill,  a  moral  issue ;  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  a  political 
issue;  and  the  Railroad  Regulation  bills,  a  commercial 
issue. 

The  Anti-Gambling  bill  was  to  come  before  the  Public 
Morals  Committee,  and  the  machine  took  good  care  that 
not  an  anti-machine  Senator  should  be  given  a  place  on 
that  committee.  The  committee  consisted  of  Weed, 
Wolfe,  Leavitt,  Savage  (labeled  Republicans),  Kennedy 
(labeled  Democrat),  all  machine  men.  The  committee 
reported  back  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  under  pressure, 
with  the  recommendation  that  it  "do  not  pass."  Public 
opinion  was  such  at  the  time  that  Savage  and  Kennedy 
did  not  vote  for  the  unfavorable  recommendation.  But 
Weed,  Wolfe  and  Leavitt,  a  majority  of  the  committee, 
stood  out  against  the  bill  until  the  last. 

The  Direct  Primary  bill  was  to  be  considered  by  the 
Election  Laws  Committee  and  the  machine  took  good 
care  to  keep  hand  upon  that  committee.  The  commit- 
tee was  made  up  of  seven  machine  and  two  anti-machine 
Senators,  as  follows : 

Machine  Senators — Leavitt,  Hartman,  Wolfe,  Sav- 
age, Wright  (labeled  Republicans),  Kennedy  and  Hare 
(labeled  Democrats). 

Every  one  of  the  seven  opposed  the  State-wide  plan 
for  the  selection  of  United  States  Senators. 


26  Organization  of  Senate 

The  anti-machine  Senators  on  the  committee  were 
Estudillo  and  Stetson. 

It  is  an  open  secret  that  the  machine  expected  to 
control  Estudillo  through  Walter  Parker,  the  Southern 
Pacific  political  agent.  Its  failure  brought  some  con- 
fusion upon  machine  circles.  Thus,  the  machine  really 
thought  when  it  picked  the  Committee  on  Election  Laws 
that  it  controlled  eight  of  the  nine  members. 

The  Railroad  Regulation  measures  were  to  be  passed 
upon  by  the  Committee  on  Corporations.  The  machine 
took  care  to  be  in  control  of  that  committee.  It  con- 
sisted of  eleven  members.  Seven  of  the  eleven,  if  Bur- 
nett who  voted  with  the  machine  on  this  issue  be  counted 
with  them,  were  machine,  one  was  "band  wagon," 10 
which  is  a  trifle  worse  than  machine,  and  three  anti- 
machine,  as  follows: 

Machine — Bates,  Wright,  McCartney,  Burnett,  Bills, 
Finn  (labeled  Republicans),  Kennedy  (labeled  Demo- 
crat). 

Band  wagon — Welch. 

Anti-machine — Walker,  Roseberry  (labeled  Republi- 
cans), and  Miller  (labeled  Democrat). 

But  here  again  the  machine  was  more  generous  than 
it  intended  to  be.  It  figured  on  controlling  Walker.  But 
in  the  committee  Walker  stood  out  manfully  for  the  Stet- 
son bill  and  against  the  Wright  bill.  On  the  floor  of 
the  Senate,  however,  Walker  made  his  one  slip  of  the 
session,  by  voting  for  the  Wright  bill  and  against  the 
Stetson  bill. 


10  The  term  "band  wagon"  was  applied  during  the  session  to 
those  members  who  were  in  the  habit  of  joining  the  winning  side 
at  the  last  moment. 


Organization  of  Senate  27 

It  is  not  necessary  to  continue  consideration  of  the 
committees.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  how  thor- 
oughly the  machine  minority,  given  the  appointment  of 
the  committees,  strengthened  itself  in  the  Senate  by  seiz- 
ing every  strategic  position.  Indeed,  the  machine  forti- 
fied itself  with  such  far-seeing  intelligence,  that  one  mar- 
vels that  the  anti-machine  majority  was  able  to  offer 
even  temporarily  effective  opposition. 


CHAPTER  III. 
ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

Independent  Movement  to  Resist  the  Machine's  Pro- 
gram Failed — Reform  Element  Rallied  and  Rejected 
Rules  Prepared  by  Committee  Appointed  by  Stanton, 
Which  Would  Have  Placed  Majority  at  Mercy  of 
the  Machine-Controlled  Minority. 

The  machine-free  members  of  the  Lower  House  at 
least  did  better  than  the  reformers  in  the  Senate;  they 
made  an  attempt  to  organize  the  Assembly  independent 
of  the  machine.  The  effort  was,  however,  as  uncertain 
as  that  of  a  nestling  taking  its  first  lesson  in  flying. 
Nothing  came  of  the  venture;  but  it  indicates  what  may 
be  done  in  future. 

The  organization  of  the  Assembly  hinges  on  the 
election  of  the  Speaker.  The  machine  ordinarily  picks 
the  Speaker  before  the  November  elections,  so  his  elec- 
tion need  not  stir  up  any  particular  enthusiasm.  But 
there  is  always  something  of  a  contest  started — for  the 
sake  of  appearances,  probably. 

This  year  the  machine  had  picked  Phil  Stanton,  of 
Los  Angeles,  for  the  job,  but  Bob  Beardslee,  of  Stockton, 
was  permitted  to  give  Stanton  "a  run." 

The  San  Francisco  newspapers  along  in  November 
and  December  recorded  the  political  ripple  of  the  con- 
test, but  the  fight  was  a -dead  affair,  and  nobody  enthused. 
The  play  came  to  a  tame  ending  when  Beardslee  nomi- 


Organization  of  Assembly  29 

nated  Stanton  for  the  Speaker's  job  and  got  the  Chair- 
manship of  the  important  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  for  being  good,  or  taking  program,  however 
one  may  view  it. 

But  at  one  time  a  real  fight  for  the  Speakership 
threatened.  Assemblyman  Drew,  of  Fresno,  and  other 
stanch  anti-machine  men,  conceived  the  radical  notion 
that  it  was  idiotic  for  them  to  sit  around  like  lambs  wait- 
ing to  have  their  throats  cut,  while  the  machine  organ- 
ized the  House.  They  accordingly  decided  to  take  a 
hand  in  the  organization  of  the  Assembly  themselves  by 
refusing  to  vote  for  any  man  for  Speaker  who  was  known 
to  be  under  the  influence  of  the  machine. 

Forty-one  votes  are  required  to  elect  the  Speaker. 
The  reformers  figured  on  the  nineteen  Democratic  mem- 
bers as  with  them.  •  The  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League  had 
elected  Assemblymen  from  several  counties,  including 
Alameda.  These  were  naturally  counted  on.  Other 
reputable  Republican  members  were  expected  to  join  the 
movement  in  numbers  sufficient  to  secure  the  necessary 
forty-one  votes. 

The  purpose  of  the  leaders  of  this  departure  from 
the  regular  rules  of  the  political  game  should  have  com- 
mended itself  to  every  good  citizen.  Their  idea  was  to 
organize  the  Assembly,  not  for  self-advancement,  or  the 
promotion  of  special  privileges  as  the  machine  leaders 
do  year  after  year,  but  that  good  bills  might  be  passed 
and  bad  bills  defeated ;  that  the  waste  of  the  public 
funds  might  be  stopped ;  that  worthy  citizenship  might 
be  placed  above  predatory  partisanship.  And  yet,  they 
were  compelled  to  proceed  with  the  utmost  caution ;  were 


30  Organization  of  Assembly 

discouraged  at  every  turn,  and  abused  like  pickpockets, 
even  by  those  upon  whom  they  depended  for  support. 
Gradually  it  dawned  upon  them  that  not  a  few  of  the 
Democratic  members  were  not  in  sympathy  with  reform 
legislation.  But  more  discouraging  still  was  the  fact 
that  certain  Republicans  elected  to  the  Assembly  by  the 
Lincoln-Roosevelt  faction  of  the  party  were  as  little  to 
be  depended  upon.  By  consulting  the  tables  "B"  and 
"C"  of  Assembly  votes  in  the  appendix,  it  will  be  seen 
that  Democrats  like  Baxter,  Collum,  Hopkins,  O'Neil  and 
Wheelan,  and  Lincoln-Roosevelt  Republicans  like  Mott, 
Pulcifer  and  Feeley,  as  a  general  thing  voted  with  the 
machine  Republicans.  There  were,  to  be  sure,  Demo- 
crats like  Gillis,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Maher, 
Mendenhall,  Polsley,  Preston,  Wilson,  Odom  and  Stuck- 
enbruck,  who  were  against  the  machine  on  every  issue, 
but  the  record  shows  the  utter  foolishness  of  regarding 
either  party  free  of  machine  influences.  Without  being 
able  to  understand  just  how  it  was,  Mr.  Drew  and  his 
associates  failed  to  secure  the  encouragement  for  their 
independent  movement  which  they  expected.  The  stealthy 
move  upon  the  Speaker's  chair  was  found  in  some  un- 
accountable way  to  be  blocked.  Then  some  cautious  soul 
suggested  that  if  they  should  fail  the  machine  would 
hold  up  the  appropriation  bills  of  those  identified  with 
the  movement.  That  settled  it.  The  attempt  to  elect 
as  Speaker  some  member  free  of  machine  influence  ended 
right  there.  The  reformers  skurried  for  cover. 

The  part  which  the  appropriation  bills  play  in  the 
enactment  of  bad  laws  is  one  of  the  least  understood  of 
a  legislative  session.  Each  session  money  must  be  appro- 


Organization  of  Assembly  31 

priated  by  legislative  enactment  for  the  maintenance  and 
enlargement,  where  necessary,  of  the  various  State  insti- 
tutions, such  as  hospitals  for  the  insane,  reform  schools, 
normal  schools,  and  the  like.  These  institutions  are  not 
local  at  all,  but  State.  But  the  Senators  and  Assembly- 
men from  the  counties  in  which  they  are  situated  are,  by 
custom,  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  securing  the 
appropriations  necessary  for  their  support.  The  San  Jose 
Normal  School,  for  example,  and  the  Agnew  Asylum 
for  the  Insane,  are  situated  in  Santa  Clara  County.  They 
are  no  more  Santa  Clara  County  institutions  than  they 
are  Del  Norte  or  San  Diego  institutions,  but  the  Senators 
and  Assemblymen  from  Santa  Clara  County  are  held 
responsible  for  the  passage  of  the  appropriation  bills 
affecting  them.  Too  often,  the  ability  of  the  Assembly- 
man or  Senator  is  measured,  not  by  his  real  work  in  the 
Legislature,  but  by  the  size  of  the  appropriations  which 
he  manages  to  secure  for  his  district.  Under  the  present 
system  by  which  the  machine  organizes  the  Legislature, 
it  is  in  a  position  to  defeat  or  materially  reduce  prac- 
tically any  appropriation  bill.  The  member  of  the  Leg- 
islature who  would  oppose  the  machine  thus  finds  him- 
self between  the  constituents  at  home,  who  demand  that 
he  secure  generous  appropriations  for  his  district,  and 
the  machine,  which  he  understands  very  well  requires 
support  of  its  policies  as  one  of  the  prices  of  the  con- 
stituent-demanded appropriations.  Thus  those  who 
would  have  opposed  the  machine  in  the  organization  of 
the  Assembly  realized  that  failure  would  probably  mean 
a  hammering  of  their  appropriation  bills,  which  would 
result  in  their  political  undoing  at  home.  So  the  inde- 


32  Organization  of  Assembly 

pendent  movement  to  organize  the  Assembly  came  to  a 
sorry  ending. 

Stanton  was  elected  Speaker  without  opposition. 
The  "defeated"  Beardslee  placed  him  in  nomination. 
Complete  harmony  prevailed.  Stanton  started  proceed- 
ings by  appointing  the  Committee  on  Rules.  This  com- 
mittee was  charged  with  drafting  rules  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Assembly  during  the  session.  It  was  made 
up  of  Assemblymen  Johnston  of  Contra  Costa,  Transue, 
Johnson  of  Sacramento,  Beardslee  and  Stanton. 

Without  the  people  knowing  much  about  what  is  going 
on,  the  rules  governing  legislative  bodies  are  being 
amended  from  time  to  time,  so  that  the  power  of  influ- 
encing legislation  is  being  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
duly  elected  representatives  of  the  people  and  placed 
with  presiding  officers  and  important  committees.  The 
"system,"  or  the  machine,  call  it  what  you  may,  finds 
it  easier  to  control  presiding  officers  and  committees  ap- 
pointed by  presiding  officers,  than  to  control  Legislatures. 
This  stealthy  advance  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
seems  to  have  reached  its  climax  at  Washington,  where 
the  independent  members  of  both  parties  are  in  open 
revolt  against  "Cannonism."  But  "Cannonism"  is  not 
confined  to  the  National  Congress  alone ;  in  a  small  way 
it  has  its  hold  on  the  California  Legislature.  The  rules 
prepared  by  Speaker  Stanton's  committee  were  well  cal- 
culated to  give  "Cannonism"  a  stronger  hold  in  Cali- 
fornia, which  would  have  influenced  not  only  the  session 
of  1909  but,  as  a  precedent,  many  sessions  to  come.11 


11  If  ever  the  People  of  California  secure  control  of  the  State 
Legislature  through  machine-free  representatives  with  the  courage 
to  dare  and  the  ability  to  do,  one  of  the  most  important  pieces  of 


Organization  of  Assembly  33 

The  proposed  rules  in  saddling  "Cannonism"  upon  the 
Assembly  were  well  calculated  to  strengthen  the  machine's 
grip  upon  the  Legislature. 

The  departure  from  the  rules  of  1907  was  most  radi- 
cal. Under  the  rules  that  governed  the  Assembly  in 
1907,  committees  were  required  to  report  on  each  bill 
referred  to  them  within  ten  days  after  the  measure  had 
been  submitted. 

The  rules  proposed  by  the  committee  provided  that 
the  report  should  be  made  as  soon  as  "practicable." 

The  rules  of  1907  provided  that  a  mere  majority  could 
recall  a  bill  from  committee. 

Under  the  proposed  rules  a  two-thirds  vote  would  have 
been  necessary. 

Under  the  rules  of  1907  a  measure  could  be  ad- 
vanced on  the  files  at  the  request  of  its  author. 

Under  the  committee's  rules  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Assembly  was  made  necessary  for  such  advancement. 

The  proposed  rules  would  have  enabled  the  machine 
forces  to  smother  in  committee  any  measure  the  machine 
wished  to  defeat.  A  two-thirds  vote  would  have  been 
necessary  to  suspend  the  rules  to  have  a  bill  recalled 
from  committee,  that  is  to  say,  the  votes  of  fifty-four 
Assemblymen.  Twenty-seven  Assemblymen  could  then 
have  held  the  measure  in  committee  until  the  session 
closed. 


work  will  be  to  sweep  aside  the  mass  of  precedent  which  the  ma- 
chine has  for  years  been  gradually  embodying  into  the  rules  of 
Senate  and  Assembly.  What  is  needed  is  a  set  of  rules  that  shall 
promote  the  expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  majority.  The  curse 
of  technicality  does  not  hamper  the  judiciary  alone;  it  hampers 
the  legislative  branch  of  government  as  well.  Note  Wolfe's  ability 
to  deadlock  the  Senate  after  the  Assembly  Amendments  to  the 
Direct  Primary  bill  had  been  rejected.  Chapter  XI. 


34  Organization  of  Assembly 

Had  the  committee-prepared  rules  been  adopted,  the 
probabilities  are  that  the  battleground  of  the  session 
would  have  been  transferred  from  the  Senate  Chamber 
to  the  Assembly. 

But  the  proposed  rules  were  not  adopted.  A  fight 
against  adopting  the  committee's  report  was  started  by 
Drew  of  Fresno.  Mr.  Drew  introduced  a  resolution  re- 
jecting the  rules  submitted  by  the  committee,  and  sub- 
stituting the  rules  of  1907,  to  govern  the  session  of  1909. 
Johnson  of  Sacramento  led  the  defense  that  rallied  to 
the  committee's  report.  But  Johnson's  wit  failed  against 
the  argument  which  Drew,  Callan,  Preston,  Young  and 
Cattell  offered.  The  gentlemen  denounced  the  rules 
which  the  committee  had  offered  as  "vicious,  despotic  and 
gagging."  Drew's  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
41  to  32,  the  committee's  report  rejected  and  the  rules 
of  1907  accepted  for  the  session  of  1909. 12  It  was  a 
decided  victory  for  the  anti-machine  forces,  and  brought 
gloom  to  the  scheming  machine  leaders.  But  it  developed 
later  that  not  a  few  who  had  voted  for  the  Drew  resolu- 
tion were  safely  machine ;  while  many  who '  had  voted 
against  it  were  anti-machine,  but  had  voted  against  the 


12  The  vote  by  which  this  was  done  was  as  follows: 
For  the  Drew  resolution  and  against  the  committee  rules:  As- 
semblymen Black,  Bohnett,  Callan,  Cattell,  Cogswell,  Collum,  Cos- 
tar,  Cronin,  Drew,  Flint,  Gibbons,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hayes, 
Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hopkins,  Irwin,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Light- 
ner,  Maher,  Melrose,  Mendenhall,  Odom,  Otis,  O'Neil,  Polsley, 
Preston,  Rech,  Rutherford,  Sackett,  Silver,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer, 
Wagner,  Webber,  Wheelan,  Whitney,  Wilson  and  Young. — 41. 

Against  the  Drew  resolution  and  for  the  committee  rules:  As- 
semblymen Barndollar,  Beardslee,  Beban,  Coghlan,  Collier,  Cullen, 
Dean,  Feeley,  Flavelle,  Fleisher,  Gerdes,  Greer,  Griffiths,  Hans, 
Hawk,  Holmquist,  Johnson  of  Sacramento,  Johnson  of  San  Diego, 
Johnston,  Leeds,  Macauley,  McClelland,  McManus,  Moore,  Mott, 
Nelson,  Ferine,  Pugh,  Pulcifer,  Schmitt,  Stanton,  Transue. — 32. 


Organization  of  Assembly  35 

resolution  under  misapprehension  of  just  what  it  stood 
for.13 

Although  the  reform  majority  in  the  Assembly  could 
prevent  the  adoption  of  the  "gag  rules,"  it  could  not,  after 
it  had  failed  to  elect  the  Speaker,  govern  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  committees.  By  and  large,  the  Assembly 
committees  were  controlled  as  were  the  Senate  commit- 
tees by  machine  standbys.  The  Election  Laws  Commit- 
tee, which  was  to  pass  upon  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  was 
safely  in  machine  hands.  Grove  L.  Johnson,  as  Chairman 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  herded  the  young  lawyers 
thereon  like  so  many  sheep.  Johnson  was  in  effect  the 
committee. 

The  Committee  on  Corporations  and  the  Committee 
on  Common  Carriers,  before  which  railroad  regulation 
bills  might  come,  were  safely  in  majority  for  the  machine. 

One  apparent  exception  to  the  rule  was  the  Commit- 
tee on  Public  Morals,  which  gave  the  Anti-Gambling 
bill  its  start  toward  passage.  But  this  committee,  which 
did  so  much  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  Anti-Gambling 
bill,  held  up  the  Local  Option  bill  at  Speaker  Stanton's 


13  A  gentleman  who  for  a  number  of  years  has  been  identified 
with  the  reform  element  in  the  Assembly,  writes  of  this  feature  of 
the  machine's  hold  on  the  Legislature  as  follows:  "One  of  the 
principal  difficulties  with  the  Legislature  as  it  is  now  constituted 
and  has  been  for  many  years  past,  is  that  the  machine  or  or- 
ganization always  endeavors  to  secure  the  election  of  young  men 
who  haven't  very  fixed  opinions  and  who  are  easily  influenced;  not 
knowing  the  machine  tactics  and  the  real  object  behind  the  legis- 
lation they  do  not  seem  to  see  the  necessity  for  standing  firm 
and  for  that  reason  are  often  led  into  voting  for  or  against  measures 
which  they  would  not  were  they  more  familiar  with  the  tricks  of 
the  machine  men.  A  new  grist  of  legislators  is  what  the  organiza- 
tion is  always  looking  for.  They  want  a  certain  number  of  old 
"stand-bys"  who  will  do  their  dirty  work  for  a  mere  pittance  or 
some  paltry  reward,  real  or  anticipated,  and  with  these  men  to 
influence  and  control  the  younger  members  their  purpose  is  easily 
accomplished." 


36  Organization  of  Assembly 

request,  until  the  last  week  of  the  session,  thus  making 
its  passage  in  the  Assembly  impossible. 

A  curious  mistake  was  made  by  the  machine,  when 
Telfer  of  San  Jose  was  made  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Contingent  Expenses.  Telfer  is  not  only  anti-machine, 
but  possessed  of  a  non-political  honesty  which  proved 
very  distressing  to  the  machine  before  the  session  was 
over. 

Telfer  as  Chairman  of  the  committee  refused  to 
"O.  K."  extravagant  charges  for  the  materials  furnished 
the  Assembly.  As  a  result,  bills  for  hire  of  typewriters 
had  to  be  reduced,  pencils  counted  and  other  astonishing 
reductions  made. 

Telfer  saved  the  State  several  hundred  dollars,  but 
caused  many  a  heartache.  Telfer's  appointment  to  a  com- 
mittee which  he  made  important,  shows  that  the  machine 
element  as  well  as  the  anti-machine  sometimes  makes 
mistakes.  But  in  spite  of  its  minor  mistakes,  in  spite 
of  the  anti-machine  majority,  so  admirably  did  the  ma- 
chine organize  the  Assembly  for  its  purposes,  that  in 
the  closing  days  of  the  session  not  only  were  vicious 
measures  passed  without  much  difficulty,  but  the  Assem- 
bly was  made  the  graveyard  of  good  bills.14 


14  See  Passage  of  Wheelan  Bills,  chapter  XVII;  Passage  of 
Change  of  Venue  bill,  chapter  XVI.  Examples  of  good  bills  defeated 
In  the  Assembly  in  the  closing  days  of  the  session  were  the  Judicial 
Column  bill,  and  the  Holohan  measure  removing  the  party  circle 
from  the  election  ballot. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  MACHINE  IN  CONTROL. 

Deliberately  Held  Up  Measures  in  Committees  Until  the 
Close  of  the  Session,  When  Senate  and  Assembly 
Were  Fdrced  to  Take  Snap  Judgment  on  Hundreds 
of  Measures — In  the  Confusion  Thus  Created,  Good 
Bills  Were  Defeated  and  Bad  Ones  Passed. 

The  Legislature  organized,  the  machine  and  anti- 
machine  forces  settled  down  to  the  work  of  the  session. 
The  situation  was  unique.  The  anti-machine  element 
had  a  comfortable  majority  in  the  Assembly  and  at  least 
a  bare  majority  in  the  Senate.  But  the  machine  con- 
trolled the  committees  of  both  Houses,  had  selected  the 
presiding  officers,  and  had  dictated  the  selection  of  the 
majority  of  the  attaches.  When,  for  example,  it  was 
suggested  that  in  the  event  of  a  close  vote  in  the  Senate 
on  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  it  might  be  found 
necessary  to  send  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  after  Sena- 
tors who  might  attempt  to  dodge  the  vote,  not  a  single 
attache  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms'  office  could  be  named 
who  was  in  sympathy  with  the  movement  against  the 
gamblers.  Incidentally,  however,  it  was  discovered  that 
the  clerk  of  the  important  Senate  Enrolling  and  Engross- 
ing Committee  had  been  an  employee  at  Frank  Daroux's 
notorious  Sausalito  poolrooms.  These  were  disquieting 
discoveries  for  the  reform  element. 

Although  the  machine  controlled  the  strategic  posi- 


38  Machine  in  Control 

tions  of  the  organization  of  the  Legislature,  it  was  still 
in  the  minority  in  each  House.  This  meant  that  the  ma- 
chine could  not,  in  open  fight,  pass  a  vicious  or  undesira- 
ble measure,  or  put  through  any  of  its  schemes.  The  ma- 
chine's course  soon  became  apparent.  If  the  machine 
could  not  put  laws  on  the  statute  books  to  its  liking,  it 
could  block  the  passage  of  good  measures.  Having 
crafty  leaders  in  both  Senate  and  Assembly,  and,  above 
all,  controlling  the  committees,  the  machine  was  admira- 
bly prepared  to  do  this.  By  employing  delaying  tactics 
which  would  have  done  credit  to  a  specialist  in  criminal 
defense,  the  machine  devoted  the  first  two  months  of  the 
session  to  the  blocking  of  legislation. 

The  methods  employed  were  very  simple.  As  soon 
as  a  bill  was  introduced  it  was  referred  to  a  committee 
of  the  House  in  which  it  originated.  The  committee 
would  hold  the  measure  until  the  reform  element  gave 
indications  of  protesting.15  The  bill  would  then  be  re- 
turned. If  possible  it  would  be  further  delayed  by  amend- 
ment on  second  or  third  reading.  If  finally  passed  by 
the  House  of  its  origin,  it  would  be  sent  to  the  other 
House,  where  it  would  be  referred  to  a  committee.  In 
the  majority  of  cases  the  committee  could  hold  it  in- 
definitely. In  such  cases  as  the  committees  were  forced  to 
report  on  measures  that  had  passed  the  other  House,  the 
measure  would  be  amended,  which  necessitated  its  being 


15  The  Senate  Committee  on  Election  Laws,  for  example,  held 
the  Direct  Primary  bill  for  thirty-eight  days,  and  finally  reported 
it  back  so  amended  that  it  had  to  be  re-written.  See  chapters  VI 
and  VII  on  efforts  of  the  machine  to  hold  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling bill  in  committee. 


Machine  in  Control  39 

reprinted,  and  again  acted  upon  by  the  House  of  its 
origin,16  all  of  which  made  for  delay. 

But  it  must  not  be  thought  that  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly were  left  in  idleness  during  the  first  two  months 
of  the  session.  Such  is  by  no  means  the  case ;  Senators 
and  Assemblymen  never  worked  harder.  The  machine 
leaders  during  the  first  month  of  the  session  craftily 
kept  the  members  wrangling  in  committees.  During  the 
second  month  the  Senate  was  kept  working  day  and 
night  passing  comparatively  unimportant  Senate  bills, 
and  the  Assembly  working  as  hard  passing  Assembly 
bills ;  but  the  Senate  passed  very  few  Assembly  bills  and 
the  Assembly  very  few  Senate  bills.  As  a  measure  must 
pass  both  Houses  to  become  a  law,  few  bills  were  sent  to 
the  Governor  for  his  approval.  Thus  during  the  first 
two  months  of  the  session  many  bills  passed  in  one  house 
or  the  other,  but  pitifully  few  passed  the  Legislature. 

The  reform  element,  working  sixteen  hours  a  day  not 
unlike  so  many  mice  in  a  wheel,  were  apparently  in  com- 
plete ignorance  of  the  situation  which  they  were  creating. 
Senators  whose  bills  had  passed  the  Senate  began  to 
complain  that  they  could  not  get  the  measures  out  of  the 
Assembly  committee;  Assemblymen  whose  measures 
had  passed  the  Assembly  were  as  loud  in  their  charges 
that  their  bills  were  being  held  up  in  Senate  committees. 
The  machine  actually  turned  this  early  dissatisfaction  to 
its  advantage.  Soon  it  was  being  announced  on  the  floor 
of  the  Assembly :  "If  Senate  committees  will  not  act  on 
Assembly  bills,  then  the  Assembly  committees  will  not 

16  It  was  stated  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  were  the 
Ten  Commandments  to  be  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate 
would  find  some  excuse  for  amending  them. 


4O  Machine  in  Control 

act  on  Senate  bills."  The  Senate  made  the  same  threats 
as  to  Assembly  bills.  So,  for  about  a  week,  Senate  com- 
mittees openly  slighted  Assembly  bills,  while  Assembly 
committees  in  retaliation  slighted  Senate  bills.  The  situa- 
tion was  very  amusing;  it  was,  too,  highly  satisfactory  to 
the  machine. 

About  the  first  week  in  March — the  Legislature  ad- 
journed March  24 — the  anti-machine  members  awoke 
to  the  fact  that  in  spite  of  their  day  and  night  sessions, 
little  had  been  accomplished.  The  further  disquieting 
discovery  was  made  that  the  bulk  of  the  Assembly  bills 
which  had  passed  the  Assembly  were  being  held  in 
Senate  committees,  while  the  Senate  bills  which  had 
passed  the  Senate,  were  apparently  anchored  in  Assembly 
committees,  and  that  the  machine  controlled  the  com- 
mittees. The  reform  members  of  each  House  had  good 
cause  for  alarm.  Every  Senator  and  Assemblyman  has 
his  "pet"  measures.  The  reform  Senators  and  Assembly- 
men found  that  to  get  their  bills  out  of  committees  they 
would  have  to  treat  with  the  machine.  Such  a  Senator 
or  Assemblyman,  with  his  constituents  clamoring  for  the 
passage  of  a  bill  held  up  in  a  machine-controlled  com- 
mittee, had  some  claim  to  pardon  if  he  turned  suddenly 
attentive  to  the  machine  olive  branch.  And  the  machine, 
by  the  way,  always  has  the  olive  branch  out.  Stand  in 
with  us,  is  their  constant  advance,  and  we  will  see  you 
through. 

As  a  result  of  these  delaying  tactics,  literally  hundreds 
of  bills  which  had  needlessly  been  held  up  in  committees 
were  forced  upon  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  during 
the  last  three  weeks  of  the  session.  Each  House  made 


Machine  in  Control  41 

records  of  passing  more  than  100  bills  a  day.  There  was 
little  pretense  of  reading  the  measures  as  required  by  the 
State  Constitution.  The  clerk  at  the  desk  mumbled  over 
their  titles ;  they  were  voted  upon  and  became  laws.  In 
the  rush  to  get  through,  as  will  be  shown  by  example  in 
other  chapters,  Senators  and  Assemblymen  voted  for 
measures  to  which  they  were  openly  opposed.  The  ma- 
chine minority  was  merely  reaping  the  benefits  of  a 
situation  which  the  cleverness  of  its  leaders  had  created. 
Although  machine-advocated  and  unimportant  meas- 
ures could  be  passed  in  such  a  situation,  bills  which  the 
machine  opposed  could  not  be.17  Machine-opposed 
measures  were  either  held  up  in  committees  until  their 
passage  was  out  of  the  question,  or  they  were  denied 
consideration  in  Senate  or  Assembly,  or  their  advocates 
worn  out.  by  the  tactics  of  the  machine  leaders.  Senate 
Bill  220,  which  removed  the  party  circle  from  the  election 
ballot,  passed  in  the  Senate  after  a  bitter  contest,  was  held 
up  in  the  Assembly  until  five  days  before  adjournment, 
and  then  denied  a  second  reading.  Boynton's  Senate  Bill 
249,  providing  for  the  arrangement  of  judicial  candidates 
on  the  ballot  without  designation  of  party  affiliations,  in- 
tended to  take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics,  which  after  a 
long  contest  passed  the  Senate,  was  held  up  in  the  As- 
sembly until  the  day  before  adjournment,  when  it  was 
denied  passage.  This  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate 
on  January  12.  So  popular  was  it,  such  was  the  demand 
for  its  passage,  that  it  was  not  openly  opposed.  It  was 
finally  defeated  on  March  23,  the  day  before  adjourn- 


17  The  most  astonishing  example  of  this  was  furnished  by  the 
passage  of  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  in  the  Senate.  See  chapter 
XVI. 


42  Machine  in  Control 

ment.  Thus  two  months  and  eleven  days  were  required 
to  wear  out  its  advocates. 

About  March  1,  the  machine  began  to  crowd  the  anti- 
machine  element  for  early  adjournment.  At  that  time 
not  far  from  2000  bills  were  recorded  in  the  Senate  and 
Assembly  histories.  The  action  had  the  effect  of  a  good 
stiff  push  to  a  man  sliding  down  hill;  the  anti-machine 
forces  had  the  votes  to  prevent  adjournment  but  the 
machine's  adjournment  plans  added  considerably  to  anti- 
machine  discomfiture.  Senator  Wolfe  actually  gave 
notice  that  on  Friday,  March  5,  he  would  move  that  the 
Legislature  adjourn  on  March  13.  This  would  have 
given  a  fortnight  for  consideration  of  nearly  2000  bills. 
At  the  time  of  Wolfe's  motion,  there  were  pending  the 
Direct  Primary  bill,  the  Railroad  Regulation  bills,  the 
Commonwealth  Club  bills,  the  Islais  Creek  Harbor  bills, 
and  scores  of  other  important  measures,  the  passage  of 
which  had  unnecessarily — albeit  most  cleverly — been  de- 
layed. 

As  a  result  of  clever  manipulation,  dating  from  the 
first  day  of  the  session,  the  machine  was  thus  in  the 
closing  days,  in  spite  of  the  majority  against  it,  able  to 
pass,  amend  or  defeat  measures,  pretty  much  as  its 
leaders  desired.  The  anti-machine  forces,  Republican 
and  Democratic,  were  during  those  last  days,  merely 
reaping  the  harvest  which  they  had  sown  when  they  per- 
mitted the  Democratic-Republican  machine  to  take  the 
organization  of  the  Legislature  out  of  their  hands. 


CHAPTER  V. 
ELECTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  SENATOR. 

Opposition  to  Perkins  Overcome  by  the  Dead  Weight  of 
the  Machine — Movement  Against  His  Re-election 
Failed  for  Want  of  Leadership — Proceedings  Without 
Warmth  or  Enthusiasm. 

No  funeral  was  ever  attended  by  greater  somberness 
than  was  the  re-election  of  George  C.  Perkins  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  January  12-13,  1909.  The  nomi- 
nating speeches  were  made  without  enthusiam;  not  a 
cheer  greeted  Senator  or  Assemblyman  charged  with  the 
task  of  putting  the  aged  Senator  in  nomination.  Pulcifer 
of  Alameda,  who  made  the  nominating  speech  in  the 
Assembly,  was  received  with  icy  calmness.  Even  when 
the  Alamedan  referred  to  the  veteran  Senator  as  "one 
whose  hair  has  grown  white  and  whose  eyes  have  grown 
dim  in  the  service  of  his  country,"  not  so  much  as  a  ripple 
of  applause  stirred  the  chamber.  When  the  speaker  con- 
cluded his  review  of  the  Senator's  life  and  political  career, 
the  incipient  murmur  of  approval  which  somebody  started 
died  away  for  want  of  vitality. 

In  the  Senate,  the  task  of  nominating  Perkins  fell  to 
Stetson  of  Alameda.  But  Stetson's  nominating  speech 
was  received  with  no  more  enthusiasm  than  was  that  of 
the  shifty  Pulcifer.  The  "system,"  the  "organization," 
the  "machine,"  have  it  as  you  will,  returned  George  C. 
Perkins  to  the  United  States  Senate.  The  people  of  Cali- 


44  Election  of  Senator 

fornia  had  no  voice  in  it,  nor,  for  that  matter,  the  Legis- 
lature, although  the  majority  of  the  Legislature  was 
opposed  to  the  machine.  In  carrying  out  the  ignoble  part 
prepared  for  them — prepared  for  them  by  the  "machine" 
which  a  majority  of  them  opposed — the  members  of  Sen- 
ate and  Assembly  went  through  the  forms  prescribed 
without  a  hand  clap  and  without  a  cheer. 

But  it  must  not  be  thought  that  the  re-election  of 
Senator  Perkins  was  without  opposition.  Indeed,  it  met 
with  the  same  sort  of  honest  but  ineffective  resistance  that 
attended  the  election  of  Stanton  to  the  Speakership  of  the 
Lower  House.  And  like  the  campaign  against  Stanton 
the  opposition  to  Perkins  got  nowhere  because  of  the  lack 
of  leadership,  organization  and  plan  of  action  on  the  part 
of  the  resisting  legislators. 

The  machine  had  been  preparing  for  Perkins'  re- 
election for  months;  but  the  opposition  to  Perkins  made 
no  move  until  after  the  November  elections. 

The  first  outward  sign  of  opposition  came  from 
Assemblyman  E.  J.  Callan  of  the  Thirty-ninth  District, 
the  fighting  reform  district  of  San  Francisco.  Callan, 
three  or  four  weeks  before  the  Legislature  convened,  fell 
into  a  trap  which  the  wily  Alameda  County  politician  had 
set  some  time  previous.  Perkins  had  long  before  invited 
criticism  of  his  "record,"  which  meant  his  votes  on  issues 
that  had  been  passed  upon  by  the  United  States  Senate. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  such  votes  mean  little,  for  the  mis- 
placed "courtesy  of  the  Senate,"  under  which  schemers 
betray  the  people,  makes  it  possible  for  even  recognized 
"reformers"  to  be  forced  to  vote  against  most  desirable 
measures.  The  other  fellows  of  the  Perkins  stripe  when 


Election  of  Senator  45 

brought  to  book  on  their  "record"  can  always  give  in 
defense:  'Why,  your  reformer,  Senator  So  and  So,  did 
the  same  thing.'  To  be  sure,  a  La  Follette  does  kick 
over  the  traces  once  in  a  while,  in  which  event  he  usually 
votes  alone,  while  the  solemn  victims  of  "courtesy"  vote 
against  him  according  to  Senatorial  custom,  not  to  use 
the  more  expressive  word,  stupidity. 

Thus,  when  Perkins  craftily  invited  his  opponents  to 
attack  him  on  his  record,  they  dodged  the  trap  gingerly, 
all  save  Callan.  Gallan  didn't  walk,  he  rushed  into  it, 
sending  a  scathing  letter  to  Perkins  on  that  gentleman's 
Senatorial  record.  Perkins'  reply  and  explanation  came 
as  a  counter  blow.  The  fire  was  tempered  out  of  Callan's 
letter.  Callan  had  permitted  Perkins  to  select  the  fighting 
ground,  and  Perkins  had  exhibited  admirable  judgment. 

The  attack  on  Perkins  had  better  been  made  on  his 
attitude  toward  the  shipping  interests  of  California — the 
development  of  the  isthmian  route  to  New  York,  for 
example;  on  his  attitude  toward  the  machine,  whose 
strangle-hold  upon  the  State  is  locked  with  federal  pat- 
ronage ;  on  his  attitude  toward  the  so-called  "Roose- 
velt policies";  on  his  attitude  toward  the  Roosevelt  ad- 
ministration, upon  which  he  hung  with  the  dead  weight 
of  crafty,  persistent  obstruction.  There  were  plenty  of 
vulnerable  points  in  the  Perkins  armor,  but  naturally  in 
selecting  the  point  of  attack,  Perkins  carefully  avoided 
them.  So  Callan's  bolt  rebounded  harmlessly,  to  the 
astonishment  of  the  various  well-meaning  reformers,  and 
the  intense  satisfaction  of  the  machine,  whose  some- 
what anxious  leaders  recognized  full  well  that  Callan's 
discomfiture  would  discourage  attacks  from  other  pos- 
sibly effective  sources. 


46  Election  of  Senator 

The  next  move  against  Perkins  came  the  week  before 
the  Legislature  convened.  A  number  of  anti-machine 
Republicans  met  at  San  Francisco  to  canvass  the  situation, 
and  formulate  a  plan  to  defeat  Perkins  if  possible,  it  was 
found  that  on  joint  Senate  and  Assembly  ballot,  the 
Democrats  would  have  twenty-nine  votes  and  the  Re- 
publicans ninety-one.  Sixty-one  votes  are  required  for 
the  election  of  a  Senator.  The  Republicans  at  the  meet- 
ing considered  these  twenty-nine  votes  as  with  them  in  the 
selection  of  an  anti-machine  Republican  for  Perkins' 
place.  The  anti-machine  Republicans  thus  in  revolt 
against  the  machine,  themselves  numbered  twenty  Sen- 
ators and  Assemblymen,  which  made  forty-nine  votes 
against  Perkins.  In  addition,  an  even  dozen  Republican 
Senators  and  Assemblymen  were  counted  upon  as  willing 
to  vote  against  Perkins  if  his  defeat  could  be  shown  to 
be  certain.  This  would  have  given  the  anti-Perkins  ele- 
ment sixty-one  votes,  just  enough  to  elect.  For  one  of 
their  number  to  fail,  meant  a  deadlock;  for  two,  if  Re- 
publicans, to  fail  meant  Perkins'  election.  It  was  a 
slender  chance,  but  the  possibility  of  success  kept  the 
movement  alive  until  the  hour  of  the  Senatorial  caucus. 

Those  who  were  promoting  the  movement  were  not 
at  the  time  aware  that  six  of  the  Democratic  Assembly- 
men and  one  of  the  Democratic  Senators  were  governed 
by  such  high  conceptions  of  their  duties  as  citizens  and 
responsibilities  as  legislators,  that  they  were  to  cast  their 
votes  in  the  Senatorial  election  for  a  San  Francisco  saloon 
keeper,  on  the  ground  that  he  is  a  "good  fellow"  and  had 
"spent  money  liberally  for  the  party."  This  of  itself 
made  the  defeat  of  Perkins  impossible. 


Election  of  Senator  47 

The  anti-Perkins  forces  were  also  handicapped  by  the 
fact  that  they  had  no  candidate.  The  machine  had  been 
craftily  booming  Perkins  for  years;  the  reformers  had 
boomed  nobody.19  They  were,  then,  without  material  for 
a  positive  fight ;  all  they  could  do  was  negative,  which  is 
always  confession  of  weakness.  In  addition,  aside  from 
the  Bulletin,  there  was  no  San  Francisco  publication  that 
could  be  counted  upon  to  back  their  movement.  The  Call 
was  openly  supporting  Perkins.  The  movement  against 
Perkins,  while  it  admittedly  represented  the  attitude  of 
the  majority  of  the  electors  of  the  State,  and  the  feeling 
of  a  safe  majority  of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature,  was 
without  one  element  of  real  strength.20 

Under  the  United  States  Revised  Statutes,  the  Legis- 
lature was  called  upon,  to  proceed  on  the  second  Tuesday 
after  organization,  to  elect  Senator  Perkins'  successor.  As 
the  Legislature  had  organized  on  January  4,  the  second 
Tuesday  fell  on  January  12.  The  call  for  the  Republican 
caucus  to  go  through  the  form  of  selecting  a  candidate 
for  the  Senate,  was  circulated  the  third  and  fourth  days 
of  the  session.  The  Republican  Senators  all  signed  it, 
not  a  few  of  them  with  the  non-resistance  of  a  wretch  in 
the  hands  of  a  hangman. 

19  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  when  a  good  citizen  gives  effect- 
ive resistance  to  the  machine,   that  the  machine  invariably  starts 
the  cry — "He  is  a  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate."     The 
open  candidacy — and  liberal  advertising — of  a  machine  man  for  the 
Federal    Senatorship    causes    no    adverse    comment.      For   an    anti- 
machine  man  to  so  aspire — or  the  suspicion  in  machine  breasts  that 
he  so  aspires— is  heralded  as  evidence  of  his  complete  unworth  and 
irresponsibility. 

20  But   when    the   machine   Republicans   of   a    State   unite   with 
Democrats  to  elect  a  machine  man  to  the  Federal  Senate,  no  such 
difficulties  attend  them.     Note  the  election  by  a  coalition  of  machine 
Republicans  and  machine  Democrats  in  Illinois,  of  "Billy"  Lorimer, 
the  notorious  "blond  boss"  of  the  stockyards,  to  the  United  States 
Senate. 


48  Election  of  Senator 

More  opposition  developed  in  the  Assembly.  Callan 
and  three  or  four  others'  kept  up  their  resistance  to  the 
last,  but  when  the  caucus  assembled  on  Friday  evening, 
January  8,  all  the  Republican  Senators  and  Assemblymen 
who  could  do  so  were  in  attendance.21 

The  caucus  was  of  course  hopelessly  programmed  for 
Perkins.  Nevertheless,  the  better  element  of  the  party 
endeavored  to  secure  some  expression  from  Senator  Per- 
kins as  to  his  attitude  toward  the  Western  transportation 
problem.  This  led  to  a  heated  debate  which  kept  the  cau- 
cus in  session  until  a  late  hour.  The  debate  turned  on 
the  celebrated  Bristow  letter. 

For  years,  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company 
has  been  able  to  prevent  effective  water  competition  by 
way  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The  Government  has  a 
line  of  steamers  running  from  New  York  to  the  Isthmus, 
and  a  railroad  line  across  the  Isthmus.  With  an  ad- 
ditional line  of  steamers  running  from  San  Francisco  to 
Panama,  the  Government  would  have  a  through  line 
from  San  Francisco  to  New  York.  This  would  give 
genuine  competition  with  the  Southern  Pacific  system, 
and  free  the  State  from  the  grasp  of  the  transportation 
monopoly. 

In  August,  1907,  Hon.  J.  L.  Bristow,  now  United 
States  Senator  from  Kansas,  was  appointed  a  Special 
Panama  Railroad  Commissioner,  to  investigate  the  neces- 
sity and  feasibility  of  putting  on  the  Pacific  line.  Mr. 
Bristow,  in  a  report  that  fairly  sizzled  with  criticism  of 


21  Senator  Bell,  although  a  Republican,  was  excluded  because 
he  would  not  make  his  peace  with  Walter  Parker,  the  Southern 
Pacific  boss  of  the  political  district  lying  south  of  Tehachepi.  See 
Chapter  II,  Organization  of  the  Senate. 


Election  of  Senator  49 

Southern  Pacific  and  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Company 
methods,  recommended  that  the  government  line  be  estab- 
lished. When  Pacific  freight  rates  were  arbitrarily  raised 
just  before  the  Legislature  convened,  shippers  of  the 
State  appealed,  not  to  Senator  Perkins  or  to  Senator 
Flint,  but  to  Senator  Bristow  from  interior  Kansas,  ask- 
ing that  he  concern  himself  with  having  government 
steamers  put  on  the  San  Francisco-Panama  route.  Bris- 
tow replied  that  he  would  do  what  he  could,  that  he  was 
receiving  many  letters  from  Western  shippers  who 
favored  the  plan,  but  that  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  way 
was  the  opposition  of  the  California  delegation  in  the 
Senate. 

This  Bristow  letter  caused  all  the  trouble  at  the  Per- 
kins caucus.  The  suggestion  was  made  that  Perkins 
owed  it  to  the  State  to  explain  the  charges  brought 
against  him  by  the  Senator  from  Kansas.  A  resolution 
was  accordingly  introduced  providing  that  a  telegram  be 
sent  Senator  Perkins  calling  upon  him  to  state  whether 
the  charge  made  by  Senator  Bristow  were  true. 

Immediately  the  pro-Perkins  people  assumed  the  dig- 
nified position  that  such  a  telegram  would  be  an  insult  to 
the  venerable  Senator  from  California.  Nobody  seems 
to  have  taken  the  trouble  to  state  that  the  Bristow  charges 
were  untrue,  but  that  the  requesting  of  the  Senator  to 
answer  them  would  be  an  insult  to  that  dignitary  was 
made  subject  of  the  warmest  oratory.  So  warm  was  it, 
that  the  opposition  to  Perkins  melted  away  like  wax — 
or  putty,  if  putty  melts — until  but  five  members  of  the 
caucus  had  the  courage  to  vote  to  ask  Perkins  to  declare 
himself  on  the  transportation  problem.  Callan  of  San 


50  Election  of  Senator 

Francisco  voted  for  it,  so  did  Drew  of  Fresno,  so  did 
Young  of  Berkeley  and  two  others.  But  77  members  of 
the  caucus  voted  against  the  resolution.  Senator  Per- 
kins was  permitted  to  maintain  a  dignified  silence  on  the 
Bristow  charges.  After  the  vote  on  the  resolution, 
Assemblyman  Callan  left  the  caucus. 

But  even  with  the  Republican  caucus  nomination, 
Perkins  did  not  receive  the  entire  Republican  vote.  In 
the  Assembly,  Callan  voted  for  Chester  Rowell  of  Fresno, 
and  Sackett  for  Thomas  R.  Bard  of  Ventura.  Fifty-six 
of  the  Assembly  votes,  however,  were  cast  for  Perkins. 

In  the  Senate,  Perkins  received  thirty-two  votes.  The 
thirty  regular  Republicans  voted  for  him,  as  did  Senator 
Bell,  the  Independent-Republican,  and  Senator  Caminetti, 
Democrat.  Senator  Caminetti  voted  for  Perkins  because 
Caminetti  regarded  Perkins,  as  nearly  as  could  be  deter- 
mined, the  choice  of  the  electors  to  whom  Caminetti  owed 
his  election.  Caminetti  believes  that  the  United  States 
Senator  should  be  selected  by  the  people  of  the  State.  The 
nearest  he  could  get  to  this  was  to  ascertain  the  wishes 
of  the  people  of  his  district.  He  was  convinced  that  the 
people  of  his  district  wished  to  see  Perkins  re-elected.  So, 
regardless  of  partisan  considerations,  Caminetti  the  Dem- 
ocrat voted  for  Perkins  the  Republican.  Caminetti's  ex- 
planation of  his  vote  is  worthy  of  the  most  careful  con- 
sideration.22 

22  Caminetti's  explanation  of  his  vote,  as  printed  in  the  Senate 
Journal,  is  in  full  as  follows: 

"Mr.  President:  During  the  campaign  of  1906,  in  the  Tenth 
Senatorial  District,  resulting  in  my  election  as  Senator,  I  made  the 
question  of  'The  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people'  one  of  the  leading  issues  upon  which  I  asked 
the  suffrage  of  the  people.  I  then  pledged  myself  in  all  my  speeches 
and  in  the  press,  to  endeavor  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law  by 
the  Legislature  in  case  of  my  election  having  that  object  in  view, 
and  in  case  of  failure  in  the  effort  I  would  nevertheless  follow  that 


Election  of  Senator  51 

The  regular  candidate  of  the  minority  for  the  Demo- 
cratic complimentary  vote  was  J.  O.  Davis,  a  gentleman 
of  the  highest  character.  But  eight  of  the  Democratic 
members  voted  against  him.  Seven  of  the  eight,  Assem- 
blymen Black,  Collum,  Hopkins,  Lightner,  O'Neil  and 
Wheelan  and  Senator  Hare  voted  for  Harry  P.  Flannery, 
a  San  Francisco  saloon-keeper;  the  eighth,  Senator  Ken- 
nedy, voted  for  William  H.  Langdon.  Six  Democratic 
Senators  and  thirteen  Democratic  Assemblymen  voted  for 
Mr.  Davis.  They  were :  Senators  Campbell,  Cartwright, 
Curtin,  Holohan,  Miller,  and  Sanford ;  Assemblymen 
Baxter,  Gibbons,  Gillis,  Irwin,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juil- 
liard,  Maher,  Mendenhall,  Odom,  Polsley,  Preston, 
Stuckenbruck  and  Webber. 


principle  and  vote  for  the  choice  of  a  majority  of  the  qualified 
electors  of  that  district  in  the  selection  of  a  Senator  during  my 
term  of  office. 

"The  last  session  of  the  Legislature  failed  to  enact  the  necessary 
legislation  on  the  subject,  but  the  people  of  my  district  have  never- 
theless plainly  indicated  to  me  that  Hon.  George  C.  Perkins  was 
at  the  last  election,  and  now  is,  their  choice  for  the  United  States 
Senatorship. 

"Under  these  circumstances  I  feel  in  honor  bound  by  my  pledges 
to  the  people  of  the  Tenth  Senator!?  1  District,  to  record  the  choice 
of  a  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  thereof  for  Hon.  George 
C.  Perkins  for  United  States  Senator,  hoping  in  so  doing  that  it 
will  never  again  be  necessary  for  a  member  of  the  Legislature  to 
vote  the  choice  of  the  people  of  his  district  in  this,  or  any  other, 
indirect  way,  but  that  this  Legislature  will  rise  superior  to  parti- 
sanship and  give  to  the  people  hereafter  an  opportunity,  under 
suitable  laws,  to  vote  directly  for  candidates  for  that  office.  Should 
this  Legislature  fail  in  this  high  duty  to  the  public,  I  trust  that 
the  people,  in  whom  all  power  resides,  will  hereafter  take  up  this 
matter  in  the  way  the  people  of  the  Tenth  Senatorial  District  did 
two  years  ago,  and  thus  be  able  in  all  legislative  districts  of  the 
State  to  record  their  choice  for  the  exalted  office  of  United  States 
Senator." 


CHAPTER   VI. 
THE  ANTI-RACETRACK  GAMBLING  BILL. 

Supporters  of  the  Measure  Knew  What  They  Wanted, 
Drew  a  Bill  to  Meet  the  Requirements  of  the  Situation 
and  Refused  to  Compromise  with  the  Machine  Ele- 
ment— Suggestive  Series  of  "Errors"  Attended  Its 
Passage. 

Of  the  three  principal  reform  measures  considered  by 
the  Legislature  of  1909— the  Direct  Primary  bill,  the 
Railroad  Regulation  bill  and  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
bill — the  last  named  was  the  only  one  to  become  a  law 
untrimmed  of  its  effective  features.  The  Anti-Racetrack 
Gambling  bill  passed  the  Assembly,  passed  the  Senate  and 
was  signed  by  the  Governor  precisely  as  it  had  been  intro- 
duced ;  there  was  not  so  much  as  the  change  of  a  comma 
allowed.  The  result  is  an  anti-gambling  law  on  California 
statute  books  which  if  it  work  as  well  as  it  has  in  other 
States  will  prevent  bookmaking  and  pool-selling,  thus 
relieving  horse  racing  of  the  incubus  which  has  made 
the  sport  of  kings  disreputable.23 

23  The  Walker-Otis  bill  is  in  full  as  follows: 

Section  1.  A  new  section  is  hereby  added  to  the  Penal  Code 
to  be  known  as  Section  three  hundred  and  thirty-seven  a  thereof 
and  to  read  as  follows: 

337a.  Every  person,  who  engages  in  poolselling  or  bookmaking 
at  any  time  or  place;  or  who  keeps  or  occupies  any  room,  shed, 
tenement,  tent,  booth,  or  building,  float  or  vessel,  or  any  part 
thereof,  or  wha  occupies  any  place  or  stand  of  any  kind,  upon 
any  public  or  private  grounds  within  this  State,  with  books,  papers, 
apparatus  or  paraphernalia,  for  the  purpose  of  recording  or  regis- 
tering bets  or  wagers,  or  of  selling  pools,  or  who  records  or 
registers  bets  or  wagers,  or  sells  pools,  upon  the  result  of  any  trial 
or  contest  of  skill,  speed  or  power  of  endurance,  of  man  or  beast 
or  between  men  or  beasts,  or  upon  the  result  of  any  lot,  chance, 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill  53 

Since  the  reform  element  succeeded  in  passing  the 
Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  without  amendment,  there 
is  widespread  opinion  that  there  was  no  opposition  to  its 
passage.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing  is  farther  from 
the  truth.  Before  a  legislator  reached  Sacramento,  the 
pro-gambling  lobby  was  on  the  ground,  and  continued 
its  hold-up  process  until  the  Assembly,  by  a  vote  of 
67  to  10,  passed  the  measure,  and  by  a  vote  of  57  to  19 
refused  to  grant  it  reconsideration. 

The  writer  remembers  his  first  poll  of  the  Sen- 
ate on  the  anti-gambling  issue,  when  only  nineteen 
Senators  could  be  safely  counted  for  it;24  twenty-one 

casualty,  unknown  or  contingent  event  whatsoever;  or  who  receives, 
registers,  records  or  forwards,  or  purports  or  pretends  to  receive, 
register,  record  or  forward,  in  any  manner  whatsoever,  any  money, 
thing  or  consideration  of  value,  bet  or  wagered,  or  offered  for  the 
purpose  of  being  bet  or  wagered,  by  or  for  any  other  person,  or  sells 
pools,  upon  any  such  result;  or  who,  being  the  owner,  lessee,  or 
occupant  of  any  room,  shed,  tenement,  tent,  booth  or  building, 
float  or  vessel,  or  part  thereof,  or  of  any  grounds  within  this  State, 
knowingly  permits  the  same  to  be  used  or  occupied  for  any  of  these 
purposes,  or  therein  keeps,  exhibits  or  employs  any  device  or  ap- 
paratus for  the  purpose  of  recording  or  registering  such  bets  or 
wagers,  or  the  selling  of  such  pools,  or  becomes  the  custodian  or 
depositary  for  gain,  hire  or  reward  of  any  money,  property  or 
thing  of  value,  staked,  wagered  or  pledged,  or  to  be  wagered  or 
pledged  upon  any  such  result;  or  who  aids,  assists  or  abets  in  any 
manner  in  any  of  the  said  acts,  which  are  hereby  forbidden,  is 
punishable  by  imprisonment  in  a  county  jail  or  State  prison  for  a 
period  of  not  less  than  thirty  days  and  not  exceeding  one  year. 

24  Had  not  the  people  of  the  Twenty-ninth  and  Thirty-first 
Senatorial  Districts  revolted  against  the  machine  at  the  general 
election  of  1908,  the  Walker-Otis  bill  would  probably  have  been 
defeated  in  the  Senate.  In  the  chapter  dealing  with  the  passage 
of  the  Miller-Drew  Reciprocal  Demurrage  bill,  it  will  be  shown  how 
the  Democratic  Senators  Holohan  and  Campbell  were  elected  in 
the  Republican  Twenty-ninth  and  Thirty-first  Senatorial  Districts, 
not  because  they  were  Democrats,  but  because  the  Republicans  of 
those  districts,  recognizing  the  real  issue  before  the  State — the  ma- 
chine against  the  anti-machine  element — voted  for  Holohan  and 
Campbell,  knowing  them  to  be  for  good  government  and  a  "square 
deal"  for  all.  Holohan  and  Campbell  were  from  the  beginning  fore- 
most in  their  support  of  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill.  To  be 
sure,  at  the  final  vote,  only  seven  Senators  voted  against  the 
measure.  But  it  is  generally  conceded  that  when  the  session 
opened,  the  gamblers  had  nineteen  Senators  who  could  have  been 
prevailed  vrpon  to  vote  against  an  effective  an ti -gambling  bill.  Had 
machine  men  sat  in  the  seats  occupied  by  Holohan  and  Campbell, 
the  gamblers  would  have  had  twenty-one  votes  in  the  Senate,  and 
the  Walker-Otis  bill  would  have  been  defeated. 


54  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill 

were  necessary  for  its  passage.  To  be  sure,  a  number 
of  the  Senators  not  included  in  the  list  of  .the  nineteen 
who  were  from  the  beginning  safe  for  the  measure,  were 
pledged  to  vote  for  an  anti-pool  selling  bill,  but  this  did 
not  necessarily  mean  the  effective  Walker-Otis  bill  which 
had  been  drawn  to  prevent  pool  selling  and  bookmaking. 
Not  a  few  unquestionably  figured  on  voting  for  a  bill  that 
would  place  them  on  record  as  against  racetrack  gamb- 
ling, but  do  racetrack  gambling  little  or  no  harm. 

These  uncertain  ones  were  blocked  in  their  plan 
of  action  because  the  proponents  of  the  Anti- 
Gambling  bill  knew  just  what  they  wanted  to  do,  namely, 
close  up  poolrooms  and  bookmakers'  booths.  They  took 
the  most  effective  way  to  close  them  up,  namely,  adapted 
to  California  Constitution  and  criminal  practice,  the 
Hughes  anti-gambling  law,  the  adoption  of  which  Gov- 
ernor Hughes  forced  in  New  York,  and  which  in  New 
York  State  had  proved  most  effective. 

The  bill  was  drawn  carefully  and  its  backers  in  the 
Legislature  and  out  of  the  Legislature  let  it  be  known 
that  no  amendment,  not  so  much  as  to  change  a  comma, 
would  be  tolerated.  The  measure  was  introduced  in  the 
Senate  by  Walker  of  Santa  Clara,  and  in  the  Assembly 
by  Otis  of  Alameda.  It  was  known  as  the  Walker-Otis 
bill. 

This  determined  stand  for  the  passage  of  the  measure 
just  as  it  had  been  drawn  thoroughly  alarmed  the  gam- 
bling lobby.  "Reformers"  who  would  not  "compromise" 
proved  a  new  experience.  The  machine  never  compro- 
mises until  it  is  whipped.  Accordingly,  when  public 
opinion  demanded  action  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill,  the 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill  55 

machine  Senators  began  to  talk  of  compromise.  In  fact, 
up  to  the  hour  of  the  vote  on  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  Sena- 
tor Wolfe  did  not  stop  whining  compromise.  In  his 
speech  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  just  before  the  final 
vote  was  taken  he  insisted:  "There  should  have  been  a 
compromise  measure  agreed  upon,  a  bill  for  which  we  all 
could  have  voted." 

The  moment  before  Wolfe  had  been  warning  the  Sen- 
ate that  to  pass  the  Walker-Otis  bill  would  tend  to  wreck 
the  Republican  party  in  California.  Just  what  the 
Walker-Otis  bill  had  to  do  with  Republican  policies  Mr. 
Wolfe  would  no  doubt  have  difficulty  in  answering.  But 
the  measure  did  have  much  to  do  with  machine  policies. 
The  machine  had  prevented  the  passage  of  the  Anti- 
Gambling  bill  two  years  before,  and  was  prepared  to 
prevent  the  enactment  of  an  effective  anti-gambling 
law  at  the  session  of  1909.  Senator  Wolfe  undoubtedly 
fell  into  the  common  error  of  mistaking  the  machine 
for  the  Republican  party. 

However,  the  spirit  of  no  compromise  which  gave 
Senator  Wolfe  so  much  concern  saved  the  Walker-Otis 
bill,  and  has  given  California  an  effective  law.  The  les- 
son of  the  incident  is  that  if  effective  laws  are  to  be 
placed  on  the  statute  books,  there  can  be  no  compromise 
with  the  machine.  There  was  compromise  with  the  ma- 
chine in  the  direct  primary  issue,  with  the  result  that  the 
Direct  Primary  law  is  in  many  respects  a  sham.  But  that 
is  another  story  to  be  told  in  another  chapter.  The  anti- 
machine  element  did  not  compromise  with  the  machine  on 
the  Walker-Otis  bill,  with  the  result  that  an  effective  law 
was  passed. 


56  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill 

From  the  beginning,  the  anti-gambling  element  let  it 
be  known  that  no  suggestion  of  compromise  would  be 
entertained.  They  announced  boldly  that  if  the  ma- 
chine succeeded  in  amending  the  measure,  they,  the 
anti-gambling  Senators  and  Assemblymen,  would  work 
to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  amended  bill.  The 
position  of  these  members  of  the  Legislature  who  did  not 
propose  to  be  sidetracked  by  machine  trickery  is  well  illus- 
trated by  an  interview  with  Senator  Walker,  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Sacramento  Bee  on  January  19. 

"If  the  Hughes  bill  can  not  pass  the  California  Legis- 
lature in  the  form  that  it  was  passed  in  New  York,"  said 
Senator  Walker,  "I  shall  vote  against  the  compromise  or 
the  amended  bill.  The  people  of  California  have  made 
clear  their  desire  that  an  effective  anti-gambling  law, 
such  as  New  York  enjoys,  be  placed  on  the  statute 
books.  To  substitute  anything  else  would  be  betrayal."25 

So  there  was  no  compromise  with  the  machine  on  the 
Walker-Otis  bill,  and  the  people  were  not  betrayed,  as 
they  were  to  be  later  in  the  passage  of  the  Direct  Primary 
bill  and  the  Railroad  Regulation  bill,  where  there  was 
compromise  with  the  machine. 

When  the  machine  found  there  was  to  be  no  compro- 
mise, a  curious  series  of  mishaps  became  the  lot  of  the 
Walker-Otis  bill,  particularly  in  the  Senate.  The  meas- 
ure, when  introduced,  was,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  legis- 


25  Much  of  the  credit  for  this  determined  stand  is  due  Earll  H. 
Webb,  president  of  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  League,  who  man- 
aged the  fight  for  effective  anti-racetrack  gambling  legislation  not 
only  during  the  session  of  the  Legislature,  but  before  the  Legis- 
lature convened.  Mr.  Webb  first  convinced  himself  that  the  Walker- 
Otis  bill  would  stop  pool  selling  and  bookmaking;  and  that  the 
measure  would  stand  the  test  of  honest  interpretation  by  the  courts. 
Then  he  made  his  fight  for  it.  To  Mr.  Webb,  more  than  to  any 
other  one  person,  is  due  the  credit  for  its  passage. 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill  57 

lation,  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Morals. 
But  it  did  not  reach  that  committee  until  several  days 
after  its  introduction.  When  the  discovery  was  made 
that  it  had  not  reached  the  committee,  a  sensation  budded 
but  never  bloomed.  The  facts,  however,  were  brought 
out  that  the  measure  had  been  reposing  in  the  pocket  of 
a  clerk  instead  of  going  to  the  committee.  This  "error" 
was  corrected,  and  the  bill  turned  over  to  its  proper 
custodians. 

Then  came  the  discovery  that  the  bill  had  not  been 
properly  printed ;  three  words  had  been  left  out  of  the 
printed  bill  in  the  State  printer's  office.  This  "error," 
as  soon  as  discovered  by  Senator  Walker,  was  corrected. 
It  was  declared  to  be  "trivial."  But  the  "trivial"  typo- 
graphical and  clerical  errors  in  the  Direct  Primary  bill  in 
the  final  count  gave  the  machine  its  opportunity  to  amend 
the  measure  to  machine  liking.  The  writer  has  no  doubt 
in  his  own  mind  that  the  machine  aimed  to  delay  the 
passage  of  the  Walker-Otis  bill  until  the  end  of  the  ses- 
sion, as  it  did  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  and  then  amend 
it  to  suit  machine  purposes  or  defeat  it  altogether. 

Error  even  attended  the  recording  of  the  passage  of 
the  bill.  After  a  measure  has  passed  the  Senate,  its  title 
must  be  read  and  approved,  and  an  order  made  trans- 
mitting it  to  the  Assembly,  all  of  which  must  be  recorded 
in  the  Senate  Journal.  The  printed  Senate  Journal  of 
February  4,  however,  the  day  the  bill  was  passed,  merely 
recorded  the  passage  of  the  bill.  Nothing  appeared  about 
its  title  having  been  read,  or  that  it  had  been  transmitted 
to  the  Assembly.  Walker  discovered  this  "error,"  and 
a  hasty  inspection  of  the  original  minutes  followed.  The 


58  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill 

original  minutes  contained  the  proper  record  as  follows: 
"Title  read  and  approved.  Bill  ordered  transmitted  to 
the  Assembly."  But  the  two  sentences  had  been  omitted 
from  the  printed  journal.  The  patient  Walker  had  the 
correction  made.  None  of  these  irregularities,  however, 
resulted  in  serious  delay.  Those  behind  the  measure 
watched  their  opponents  closely,  refused  utterly  to  treat 
them  with  the  "courtesy  due  Senators,"  in  fact,  acted 
under  the  assumption  that  the  gambling  element  would 
stop  at  nothing  to  defeat  the  bill.  This  watchfulness  is 
an  important  although  comparatively  minor  reason  why 
the  bill  was  passed. 

Then  came  the  machine's  move  to  pass  "an  anti- 
gambling  bill"  as  a  substitute  for  the  Walker-Otis  meas- 
ure. Martinelli  in  the  Senate  and  Butler  in  the  Assembly 
had  introduced  an  Anti-Pool  Selling,  Anti-Book  Making 
bill.  The  measure  had  much  to  commend  it  but  was  by 
no  means  so  effective  as  the  Walker-Otis  bill.  As  a  last 
straw,  the  gambling  element  grasped  at  the  Martinelli- 
Butler  bill,  and  threw  their  influence  on  the  side  of  its 
passage.  But  here  they  again  met  with  the  uncompro- 
mising resistance  of  the  reform  element.  There  was 
nothing  left  for  the  machine  to  do  but  make  its  fight  on 
the  floor  of  Senate  and  of  Assembly.  And  the  fight  came 
on  in  a  way  and  with  a  suddenness  which  brought  con- 
sternation upon  the  machine  forces. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
PASSAGE  OF  THE  WALKER-OTIS  BILL. 

Anti-Machine  Element  Forced  the  Issue  and  Compelled 
Early  Action  on  the  Measure — Evidence  That  Ma- 
chine Planned  to  Defeat  or  Amend  the  Bill  by  De- 
laying Its  Passage  Until  Toward  the  End  of  the 
Session. 

As  one  looks  back  over  the  exciting  first  five  weeks 
of  the  session,  when  the  Walker-Otis  bill  was  under  con- 
sideration, it  is  plain  that  the  machine  would  have  pre- 
ferred to  have  made  its  initial  fight  in  the  Senate.  If  de- 
feated in  the  Senate,  the  enemies  of  the  measure  could 
have  jockeyed  for  delay,  prevented  the  passage  of  the 
measure  until  the  closing  hours  of  the  session,  and  then 
killed  it  or  forced  its  supporters  to  accept  amendments. 

But  the  initial  fight  did  not  come  in  the  Senate.  The 
Assembly  was  the  battle-ground.  The  reason  for  this  lies 
principally  in  the  fact  that  while  Assemblyman  W.  B. 
Griffiths,  of  Napa,  raises  fast  horses,  he  is  not  a  gambler, 
and  is  as  much  opposed  to  the  bookmaking,  pool-selling 
features  of  the  track  as  Senator  Walker  himself.  Grif- 
fiths was  made  chairman  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on 
Public  Morals.  While  this  committee  has  sundry  sins  to 
answer  for,  nevertheless  it  made  an  astonishingly  clean 
record  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill.  On  January  18,  less  than 
three  weeks  after  the  Legislature  had  assembled,  Chair- 
man Griffiths  called  his  committee  together  to  take  up  the 
Walker-Otis  bill. 


6o  Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill 

Of  the  nine  members  of  the  committee,  seven  were 
present,  Mott  and  Mendenhall  alone  failing  to  answer  to 
their  names.  Those  present  were:  Griffiths,  Cattell, 
Young,  Dean,  Ferine,  Fleisher  and  Wilson.  The  seven 
members  went  through  the  bill  paragraph  by  paragraph 
and  decided  unanimously  to  recommend  it  for  passage. 

Had  a  dynamite  bomb  been  set  off  under  the  Emery- 
ville gambling  establishment,  greater  consternation  could 
scarcely  have  seized  upon  the  pro-gambling  element.  The 
gamblers  realized  that  the  committee's  prompt  action 
threatened  the  machine's  plan  to  delay  action  on  the 
measure  until  the  closing  days  of  the  session.  For  the 
moment  all  interest  centered  in  Mott  and  Mendenhall, 
the  two  members  of  the  committee  who  had  been  absent 
when  the  measure  had  been  considered.  Twenty-four 
hours  developed  the  fact  that  Mendenhall  sanctioned  the 
action  of  his  seven  associates.  This  made  eight  of  the 
nine  committeemen  for  the  bill.  But  the  ninth  member, 
Assemblyman  Mott  of  Alameda  County,  was  very  much 
offended  at  what  the  committee  had  done. 

Assemblyman  Mott  was  elected  as  a  Lincoln-Roose- 
velt League  member.  Probably  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt 
League  does  not  like  to  be  reminded  of  that  unfortunate 
fact.  But  the  lesson  of  Mr.  Mott  is  so  necessary  for  the 
Lincoln-Roosevelt  League  and  all  other  reform  move- 
ments that  the  conspicuous  part  which  Mott  played 
against  reform  policies  cannot  be  too  much  insisted  upon. 
To  be  sure,  Mr.  Mott  voted  for  the  bill  when  it  was  up 
for  passage — the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  Republican  platform 
of  his  county  pledged  him  to  it.  But  there  is  a  deal  of 


Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill  61 

difference  between  supporting  a  measure  and  voting 
for  it.26 

Mott  was  very  much  offended  at  what  the  committee 
had  done  and  demanded  that  another  meeting  be  held. 
Such  a  meeting,  to  accommodate  Mr.  Mott,  was  held — 
held  in  the  office  of  Speaker  Phil  Stanton;  held  behind 
closed  doors;  held  with  Jere  Burke,  Southern  Pacific 
lobbyist,  safely  entrenched  across  the  hall  from  Speaker 
Stanton's  office  in  the  back  office  of  Sergeant-at-Arms 
Stafford.27 

But  Mott  failed  to  change  the  position  of  his  eight 
associates.  The  further  consideration  of  the  measure 
by  the  committee  which  he  demanded  was  denied.  He 
accordingly  took  the  fight  for  reconsideration  to  the  floor 
of  the  Assembly.  The  fact  that  eight  of  the  committee 
were  against  him,  apparently  had  no  weight  at  all  with 
Mr.  Mott. 

Failing  to  force  the  committee  to  reconsider  its  action 
in  recommending  that  the  bill  pass,  Mott  told  his  troubles 
to  the  Assembly.  In  the  Assembly  Mott  moved  that  the 
measure  be  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on  Public 
Morals,  eight  members  of  which  had  joined  in  recom- 
mending that  it  "do  pass." 

The  motion  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  53  to  23.  This  was 
recognized  as  the  test  vote  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Anti- 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill.  That  the  opponents  of  the  bill 
failed  to  make  a  better  showing  fairly  paralyzed  the  pro- 

26  Of  the  six  votes  taken  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Walker-Otis 
bill  issue,   Mott   in   effect  voted  four  times  against  the  immediate 
passage  of  the  measure.     See  Table  "D." 

27  It  was  Jere  Burke' s  first  appearance  at  the  capital  for  the 
session.      The    danger   which    threatened     the     gambling     element 
brought  to  the  capital  every  machine  lobbyist  within  reach,  from 
Frank  Daroux  down.     It  was  an  anxious  hour  for  the  machine. 


62  Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill 

gambling  lobby.  Mott,  chagrined  and  discomfited,  retired 
in  confusion.28 

Assemblyman  Gibbons  managed  at  this  point  to  tie 
the  bill  up  for  another  day,  by  giving  notice  that  on  the 
day  following,  he  would  move  that  the  vote  by  which  the 
bill  was  refused  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Public 
Morals  be  reconsidered.  The  day  following  Mr.  Gibbons 
made  his  motion  but  was  voted  down,  thirty  Assembly- 
men supporting  and  forty-eight  opposing  him.29 

The  Gibbons  motion  having  been  disposed  of,  Assem- 
blyman Butler  moved  to  amend  the  measure,  by  substi- 
tuting for  it  the  Martinelli-Butler  bill.  But  again  did  the 
anti-gambling  element  force  the  issue.  The  motion  was 
lost  by  a  vote  of  23  to  52. 

Other  proposed  amendments  having  been  voted  down, 
Mr.  Otis  moved  that  the  bill  be  put  on  it.s  passage  the 
next  day,  January  21.  This  was  a  final  blow  at  the  ma- 
chine's purpose  to  delay  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  long  as 
possible,  and  was  met  with  determined  opposition.  But 
the  motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  44  to  32. 

The  bill  was  on  the  following  day  put  upon  its  final 


28  This  first  test  vote  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill 
was  as  follows: 

For  Mott's  motion,  and  in  effect  against  the  bill:  Baxter, 
Beardslee,  Beban,  Black,  Coghlan,  Collum,  Cullen,  Greer,  Hopkins, 
Johnson  of  Sacramento  (Grove  L.),  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  John- 
ston of  Contra  Costa,  Macauley,  McManus,  Moore,  Mott,  Nelson, 
Odom,  O'Neil,  Pugh,  Schmitt,  Wagner,  Webber.— 23. 

Against  Mott's  motion,  and  in  effect  for  the  bill:  Barn- 
dollar,  Beatty,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Callan,  Cattell,  Collier,  Costar, 
CVonin,  Dean,  Drew,  Flavelle,  Fleisher,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Gibbons, 
Gillis,  Griffiths,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans.  Hawk,  Hayes,  Hewitt, 
Hinkle,  Holmquist,  Irwin,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Kehoe, 
Leeds,  Lightner,  Maher,  McClellan,  Melrose,  Mendenhall,  Otis, 
Perine,  Polsley,  Preston,  Pulcifer,  Rech,  Rutherford,  Sackett,  Silver, 
Stanton,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Transue,  Whitney,  Wilson,  Wyllie, 
Young.— 53. 

29  The  several  votes  taken  on  the  Walker- Otis  bill  will  be  found 
in   the  table   "D"  of  the  appendix. 


Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill  63 

passage.  The  writer  considers  the  real  test  vote  on  the 
bill  was  cast  on  Mott's  motion  to  refer  the  measure  back 
to  the  Committee  on  Public  Morals.  The  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  measure  counts  for  little  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. Sixty-seven  Assemblymen  voted  for  it ;  only 
ten — and  every  one  of  them  from  San  Francisco — voted 
against  it. 

By  consulting  the  table  showing  the  six  votes  on  this 
bill — Table  "D"  of  the  appendix — it  will  be  seen  that 
eleven  of  the  twenty-three  Assemblymen  who  voted  for 
Mott's  motion  to  refer  the  measure  back  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Morals  voted  for  its  final  passage.  Two, 
Baxter  and  Schmitt,  who  had  voted  for  the  Mott  resolu- 
tion, were  absent  when  the  final  vote  on  the  bill  was  taken, 
leaving  only  ten  who  had  voted  for  the  Mott  resolution 
to  vote  against  the  bill.  The  eleven  who  had  voted  for 
Mott's  motion,  but  who  switched  to  safety  when  the  vote 
on  the  bill's  passage  came,  were :  Beardslee,  Greer,  John- 
son of  Sacramento,30  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Johnston  of 
Contra  Costa,  Moore,  Mott,  Nelson,  Odom,  Wagner, 
Webber— 11. 

There  was  just  one  more  parliamentary  move  by 
which  the  Walker-Otis  bill  could  be  delayed  in  the  As- 
sembly, to  give  notice  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
by  which  the  measure  had  been  passed.  Grove  L.  John- 
son came  to  the  rescue  with  the  notice.  This  tied  the  bill 
up  for  another  twenty-four  hours.  On  the  22nd  Johnson 


30  Johnson  of  Sacramento  voted  for  the  bill  to  give  notice  that 
he  would  the  next  day  move  for  its  reconsideration.  Reconsidera- 
tion can  be  secured  only  by  a  member  voting  with  the  majority. 
Had  Johnson  voted  against  the  bill  he  could  not  have  secured  its 
reconsideration. 


64  Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill 

made  his  motion  to  reconsider  but  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  nineteen  to  fifty-seven. 

The  table  of  the  six  votes  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill 
shows  at  a  glance  who  voted  consistently  for  the  measure 
on  all  of  the  numerous  roll  calls;  who  voted  consistently 
against  it;  and  who  were  pulled  backward  and  forward, 
voting  one  moment  to  satisfy  the  public  demand  that  the 
bill  be  passed,  and  the  next  on  the  side  of  the  gambling 
interests.31 

Public  opinion  was  running  high  for  the  passage  of 
the  Walker-Otis  bill  by  the  time  the  measure  reached  the 
Senate,  after  passing  the  Assembly,  but  the  bill  might 
still  have  been  held  up  in  the  Senate  committee  32  had  it 
not  been  for  the  ridiculous  attack  which  Tom  Williams, 

31  Attention  is  called  to  the  vote  on  reconsideration  of  Assembly- 
man Feeley,  of  Alameda,  another  Lincoln-Roosevelt  member.     Mr. 
Feeley  was   absent   when   the  vote   on   Mott's   motion   was    taken. 
But  Mr.   Feeley  voted  for  the  bill  when   it  was  on  final  passage, 
thus    keeping    his    record    straight.      But    Mr.    Feeley    hastened    to 
vote  for  reconsideration  of  the  measure. 

Mr.  Feeley,  like  Mr.  Mott,  was  nominated  by  the  Lincoln-Roose- 
velt League  because  he  could  be  elected.  Mr.  Feeley  furnishes 
another  example  of  the  folly  of  which  reformers  are  sometimes 
guilty,  of  nominating  men  whose  best  recommendation  seems  to 
be  that  they  can  be  elected.  To  be  elected  is  very  important,  to  be 
sure;  but  if  a  man  when  elected  to  the  Legislature  is  to  vote 
against  reform  policies,  why  should  the  anti-machine  element  nom- 
inate him,  thereby  losing  all  the  chance  they  might  have  had  of 
electing  a  man  who  would  be  in  sympathy  with  their  endeavors? 

32  In  1907,  a  measure  similar  to  the  Walker-Otis  bill  was  killed 
in  this  way.    It  passed  the  Assembly  and  was  in  the  Senate  referred 
to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Morals.     The  committee  refused 
to  report  it  back  to  the  Senate,  and  friends  of  the  measure  could 
not  secure  enough  votes  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  to  compel  the 
committee    to    act.      The    committee    (1907)    consisted    of    Senators 
Irish,   Leavitt,   Lynch,   Wolfe  and   Kennedy.     Irish  and   Lynch  did 
not  sit  in  the  Senate  of  1909,  and  could  not  be  reappointed  to  the 
committee.     But  Lieutenant-Governor  Porter  distinguished  himself 
by   reappointing    to    the    committee    Wolfe,    Leavitt   and   Kennedy. 
Weed  and   Savage  were  added   to   take  the  places  left  vacant  by 
Irish   and    Lynch.      Weed    in    1907   voted    with   Leavitt,    Wolfe   and 
Kennedy   against   compelling   the    committee    to    release    the   Anti- 
Racetrack    Gambling    bill.      Senator    Savage    (1907)    voted    for    the 
bill's  release,  but  Senator  Savage  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of 
1909,    was    at    least   counted    as    opposed    to    the   Walker-Otis    bill. 
The  gambling  element  had  no  complaint  to  make  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Morals  which  Lieutenant-Governor  Porter  had  appointed. 


Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill  65 

president  of  the  California  Jockey  Club,  made  upon  all 
who  supported  the  measure,  or  all  who  Williams  thought 
supported  it. 

The  occasion  was  a  public  hearing  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Public  Morals,  at  which  Williams  was 
asked  to  present  the  side  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill.  The 
crowd  that  filled  the  Senate  chamber  expected  from  Will- 
iams some  reasons  why  the  measure  should  be  denied 
passage,  but  it  was  disappointed. 

Instead  of  giving  reasons  in  support  of  his  position, 
Williams  introduced  the  methods  of  the  barroom  into  the 
Senate  chamber.  He  dramatically  gave  Rev.  Frank  K. 
Baker,  of  Sacramento,  the  lie,  under  conditions  which 
stamped  Williams  as  a  bully  and  a  coward.  His  uncalled- 
for  attack  on  Dr.  Baker  would  have  killed  his  argument, 
but  not  content  with  this,  he  made  probably  the  most  as- 
tounding attack  on  the  Protestant  clergy  of  the  country 
ever  heard  in  California,  certainly  the  most  astonishing 
ever  heard  in  the  Senate  chamber  of  the  State.33 

The  racetrack  man's  tirade  did  not  give  the  reasons 

33  Williams  was  not  the  only  gambler  who  injured  the  gamblers' 
cause  that  night.  Frank  Daroux,  keeper  of  the  notorious  Sausalito 
poolrooms,  interrupted  A.  J.  Treat,  of  Sausalito,  who  was  speak- 
ing for  the  Walker-Otis  bill,  to  demand  of  him  how  it  is  that  at 
the  polls  the  gamblers  of  that  city  invariably  defeat  the  anti- 
gambling  element. 

"You  will  remember,  Mr.  Daroux,"  came  'back  Treat,  "that  at 
the  last  general  election  you  and  I  discussed  that  question?" 

'Yes,"  was  the  reply. 

'And  I  asked  you  why  you  were  in  politics?"  continued  Treat. 

'Yes,"  said  Daroux. 

'And  you  told  me,"   insisted  Treat,   "that  you  were  in  politics 


for 


principle." 


'Yes,"  admitted  the  poolseller. 

'And  I  asked  you  how  you  spelt  it  then;  and  I  ask  you  how 
you  spell  it  now?" 

The  crowd  that  packed  the  Senate  Chamber,  even  the  scores  of 
racetrack  touts  that  had  been  rushed  to  Sacramento  to  give  weight 
to  the  side  of  the  gamblers,  went  wild  at  this.  Treat  was  cheered 
to  the  echo.  Daroux  slunk  back  into  his  seat  silenced  and  was 
not  heard  from  again  the  whole  evening. 


66  Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill 

for  continuance  of  gambling,  which  the  people  expected 
to  hear  from  him.  Finally,  when  Williams  was  swamped 
by  questions  which  his  insolence  and  tactlessness  had 
provoked,  Senator  Frank  Leavitt  came  to  his  rescue  by 
moving  adjournment.  Leavitt's  motion  prevailed,  but  not 
until  Williams  had  effectively  settled  the  fate  of  the 
Walker-Otis  bill. 

The  Committee  on  Public  Morals  reported  the  bill 
back  the  next  day  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do 
not  pass.  The  recommendation  was  that  of  Weed,  Wolfe 
and  Leavitt.  While  Kennedy  and  Savage  failed  to  vote 
for  the  recommendation,  they  made  no  minority  report. 
But  even  with  the  unfavorable  report,  the  measure  passed 
the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  33  to  7.  In  the  eleventh  hour, 
uncertain  Senators  like  Welch  joined  the  winning  side, 
but  the  showing  made  by  the  gamblers  was,  all  things 
considered,  better  than  could  have  been  expected.34 

In  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  out  of  a  total  vote  of  120, 
the  gambling  element,  which  had  year  after  year  suc- 
ceeded in  preventing  the  passage  of  an  anti-racetrack 
gambling  bill,  commanded  on  the  measure's  final  passage 
but  seventeen  votes.  The  incident  illustrates  what  aroused 
public  opinion,  when  it  finds  expression  in  a  definite  plan 
of  action,  can  compel. 

But  even  with  the  measure's  final  passage,  the  delays 
that  attended  it  continued.  It  passed  the  Senate  on 
Thursday,  February  4.  By  the  following  Saturday,  the 

34  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill:  Anthony,  Bates,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black.  Boyn- 
ton,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten, 
Estudillo,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Kennedy,  Lewis,  Martinelli.  McCartney, 
Miller,  Price,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Savage,  Stetson.  Stro- 
bridge,  Thompson,  Walker,  Welch,  Willis,  Wright— 33. 

Against  the  bill:  Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Leavitt,  Reily,  Weed, 
Wolfe — 7. 


Passage  of  Walker-Otis  Bill  67 

measure  had  been  correctly  engrossed,  but  could  not  go 
to  the  Governor  until  it  had  received  the  signature  of 
Speaker  Stanton  of  the  Assembly.  Stanton  was  out  of 
town.  As  a  result,  it  was  February  10,  six  days  after 
it  had  passed  the  Senate,  before  it  went  to  the  Governor. 
Governor  Gillett  took  nine  days  to  sign  it,  the  Senate 
History  showing  that  it  was  approved  on  February  19. 
Because  of  the  delays  the  gamblers  were  enabled  to  com- 
plete their  season  at  the  Emeryville  track. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 
THE  DIRECT  PRIMARY  BILL. 

Parallel  Between  It  and  the  Walker-Otis  Bill— Attempt 
to  Placate  the  Machine  Weakened  Position  of  Its  Sup- 
porters— Most  Serious  Criticism  Came  from  Advo- 
cates of  the  Direct  Primary  Idea — What  the  Original 
Measure  Provided — Machine's  Plan  of  Campaign. 

The  parallel  between  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Racetrack 
Gambling  bill  and  the  Wright-Stanton  Direct  Primary 
bill  furnishes  the  most  suggestive  feature  of  the  Legis- 
lative session.  Each  was  based  on  a  demand  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  for  the  correction  of 
an  abuse ;  the  one  to  prevent  the  prostitution  of  the  race- 
course in  the  interest  of  the  gambling  element ;  the  second 
to  prevent  the  domination  in  public  affairs  of  the  corrupt, 
corporation-backed  political  boss. 

Each  had  been  discussed  in  the  public  prints  for 
months  previous  to  the  convening  of  the  Legislature,  and 
each  had  been  made  in  the  popular  view  of  affairs  a  sort 
of  test  by  which  the  Legislature  was  to  be  judged. 

Each  had  the  support  of  not  only  the  better  element  of 
electors,  but  the  better  element  of  each  House  of  the  Leg- 
islature. Each  had  the  determined  secret  opposition,  and 
so  far  as  it  dared,  the  open  opposition  of  the  machine. 

The  campaign  which  the  machine  planned  against  the 
bills  was  practically  the  same  in  each  instance — to  amend 
the  measures  into  a  condition  of  ineffectiveness,  and  then 


Direct  Primary  Bill  69 

pass  them  as  sop  to  The  People.  This  would  have  given 
The  People  a  Direct  Primary  law  without  a  direct  pri- 
mary ;  an  Anti-Gambling  law  that  would  neither  close 
poolrooms  nor  interfere  with  bookmaking. 

And  here  the  parallel  ends. 

The  proponents  of  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  introduced 
an  Anti-Gambling  measure,  showed  that  it  was  the  best 
that  could  be  drawn,  and  let  it  be  known  that  they  (the 
supporters  of  the  measure)  would,  if  it  were  amended  by 
the  machine,  vote  against  it. 

The  proponents  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  on  the 
other  hand,  seemed  possessed  of  the  notion  that  they  must 
placate  the  machine  if  any  Direct  Primary  bill  were  to  be 
passed. 

The  backers  of  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  treated  the 
machine  leaders  as  recognized  enemies  of  the  measure, 
with  whom  there  could  be  no  compromise.  The  backers 
of  the  Direct  Primary  bill  treated  the  machine  leaders  as 
friends  and  allies,  inviting  them  to  offer  suggestion  and 
advice. 

The  results  of  the  two  campaigns  speak  for  the  ef- 
fectiveness of  the  two  methods.  The  Anti-Gambling  ele- 
ment put  through  an  effective  Anti-Gambling  bill,  re- 
fusing to  compromise  on  so  much  as  the  change  of  a 
comma.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  the 
machine  not  only  had  the  last  word,  but  in  the  feature  of 
the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators,  the  real  bone 
of  contention,  amended  the  measure  very  much  to  its 
liking. 

Long  before  the  Legislature  convened  it  was  common 
talk  at  San  Francisco  that  the  backers  of  the  Direct  Pri- 


70-  Direct  Primary  Bill 

mary  bill  were  willing  to  accept  any  sort  of  a  bill,  so  long 
as  a  direct  primary  measure  be  passed.  Inasmuch  as  it  is 
quite  possible  that  a  legislative  enactment  called  Direct 
Primary  law  may  be  a  trifle  worse  than  no  Direct  Pri- 
mary law  at  all,  the  jelly-fish  attitude  of  the  leaders  in 
the  movement  caused  no  little  unfavorable  comment. 

It  did  not  seem  to  occur  to  the  self-constituted  leaders 
that  their  proper  course  was  to  draw  up  the  most  effective 
measure  possible,  let  its  effectiveness  be  known  to  the 
people — as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Anti-Gambling 
bill — and  insist  that  the  Legislature  go  on  record  for  or 
against  it. 

Instead,  they  endeavored  to  satisfy  everybody,  appar- 
ently attempted  to  come  to  a  compromise  understanding 
with  the  machine,  or  at  least  to  please  machine  leaders. 
Their  theory  seemed  to  be  that  if  the  measure  were  not 
made  too  effective,  the  machine  would  not  seriously  oppose 
its  passage,  thus  insuring  a  glorious  and  at  the  same  time, 
easy  victory. 

However  unwarranted  this  assumption  from  appear- 
ances may  be,  such  hidebound  machine  men  as  Wolfe 
and  Leavitt  were  consulted  and  flattered,  apparently  with 
the  idea  that  although  they  had  been  abused  like  pick- 
pockets on  previous  occasions,  they  could  be  won  over 
to  the  Direct  Primary  cause. 

The  stupidity  of  this  policy  was  shown  at  the  end  of 
the  session,  when  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  dictated  the  terms 
under  which  the  Direct  Primary  bill  should  pass.  Had 
the  supporters  of  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  pursued  the  same 
policy,  and  treated  the  machine  leaders  as  possible  friends 
instead  of  recognized  enemies,  Wolfe,  Leavitt  and  the 


Direct  Primary  Bill  71 

other  machine  leaders  would  unquestionably  have  dictated 
the  provisions  of  the  Anti-Gambling  bill,  and  have  "forced 
that  compromise  which  Wolfe  in  his  speech  on  the 
Walker-Otis  bill  regretted  so  bitterly  had  not  been  made. 

The  purpose  of  the  Direct  Primary  is  primarily  to 
take  away  from  the  political  bosses  the  monopoly  which 
the  convention  system  gives  them  in  naming  candidates 
for  office,  and  to  place  such  nomination  in  the  hands  of 
The  People.  To  this  end,  under  the  Direct  Primary  laws 
that  have  of  recent  years  been  adopted,  the  boss-con- 
trolled convention  is  done  away  with,  and  the  candidate 
for  office  nominated  by  the  direct  vote  of  The  People. 

The  play  of  the  machine  was  to  make  the  direct 
nomination  difficult  and  impracticable  and,  if  possible,  en- 
tirely ineffective.  The  real  supporters  of  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary idea  aimed  to  make  the  nomination  as  simple  as 
possible,  and  easily  attained,  that  genuine  expression  of 
the  choice  of  the  electors  could  be  secured. 

But  instead  of  aiming  at  simplicity  and  direct  methods, 
the  Direct  Primary  bill,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by 
Wright  and  in  the  Assembly  by  Stanton,35  threw  a  con- 
fusing mass  of  partisan  detail  about  the  selection  of  the 
primary  candidate.  It  was  made  practically  impossible 
for  an  independent  citizen  believing  in  the  principles  of 
a  given  party,  but  withholding  his  right  to  exercise  the 
citizen's  judgment  at  the  polls,  to  become  a  primary  candi- 
date. Throughout,  the  measure  made  it  smooth  sailing 
for  the  mere  partisan  and  extremely  hard  for  independent 


35  In  addition  to  the  Wright- Stan  ton  bill,  Senator  Roseberry 
introduced  a  measure  providing  for  a  postal  primary.  In  the  ap- 
pendix will  be  found  Senator  Roseberry's  views  on  the  postal 
primary  plan. 


72  Direct  Primary  Bill 

Republican  or  independent  Democrat  to  secure  party 
nomination. 35a 

For  example,  the  candidate  for  party  nomination,  was, 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  bill,  required  not  only  to 
set  forth  the  name  of  the  party  under  which  he  might  seek 
nomination,  but  to  make  affidavit  "that  he  affiliated  with 
said  party  at  the  last  preceding  general  election,  and  either 
that  he  did  not  vote  thereat,  or  voted  for  a  majority  of 
the  candidates  of  said  party  at  said  next  preceding  gen- 
eral election,  and  intends  to  so  vote  at  the  ensuing  elec- 
tion." 

Thus,  no  citizen  who  had  not  supported  the  majority 
of  his  party  candidates  at  the  previous  election,  and  who 
was  unwilling  to  take  an  oath  before  their  nomination,  to 
support  a  majority  of  the  candidates  at  the  next  ensuing 
election,  was  to  be  eligible  for  primary  nomination  to 
office. 

But  this,  and  similar  unfortunate  provisions  were  prac- 
tically lost  sight  of  in  the  fight  made  over  the  provisions 
for  the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators,  and  re- 
mained in  the  measure  as  it  was  finally  enacted  into  law. 

It  may  be,  as  the  machine  element  contends,  that  pro- 
vision for  the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators  has 
no  place  in  a  Direct  Primary  law,  but  the  fact  remains 
that  The  People  have  inseparably  linked  with  the  direct 
primary  idea  the  selection  of  United  States  Senators  by 
direct  vote. 

The  Federal  laws  provide  that  United  States  Senators 
shall  be  elected  by  the  Legislature.  But  in  States  where 


35a  The  writer  has  been  reliably  informed  that  this  concession 
was  made  to  the  machine  before  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
reached  Sacramento. 


Direct  Primary  Bill  73 

Direct  Primary  laws  have  been  adopted,  provisions  have 
been  made  by  which  the  names  of  candidates  for .  the 
United  States  Senate  are  placed  on  the  primary  ballot 
the  same  as  the  name  of  any  other  candidate  for  a  State 
office.  The  same  Direct  Primary  laws  give  candidates 
for  the  Legislature  opportunity  to  pledge  themselves  to 
accept  The  People's  decision,  and  as  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature to  cast  their  votes  for  such  candidate  for  the 
United  States  Senate  as  The  People  may  have  named. 

The  Legislature  is  thus  made  to  abide  by  The  People's 
will  in  electing  United  States  Senators,  precisely  as  the 
Electoral  College  is  made  to  abide  by  The  People's  will 
in  the  election  of  the  President. 

To  be  sure,  no  candidate  for  the  Legislature  need 
take  the  pledge  if  he  does  not  care  to  do  so,  but  it  is  rec- 
ognized that  where  it  is  possible  for  the  voter  to  express 
a  choice  .for  United  States  Senator,  the  legislative  candi- 
date who  fails  to  pledge  himself  to  respect  The  People's 
choice  would  stand  slim  chances  of  election. 

The  Direct  Primary  law  adopted  by  Oregon 35b  repre- 
sents the  highest  development  of  the  plan  for  popular 
selection  of  United  States  Senators.  In  that  State  the 

• 

candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  is  nominated  the 
same  as  any  other  candidate,  the  names  of  each  success- 
ful primary  nominee  going  on  the  regular  ballot  the 
same  as  that  of  any  candidate  for  State  office. 

The  Senatorial  candidate  who  receives  the  highest 
number  of  votes  is  not,  of  course,  elected  to  the  United 

35b  Senator  Caminetti  introduced  a  separate  bill  providing  the 
Oregon  plan  for  the  popular  choice  of  United  States  Senators. 
He  was  requested  not  to  press  its  passage,  BECAUSE  IT  MIGHT 
INJURE  THE  CHANCES  OF  PASSAGE  OF  THE  DIRECT  PRI- 
MARY BILL.  The  machine  claquer  is  never  at  a  loss  for  an  ex- 
cuse for  the  defeat  of  a  meritorious  measure. 


74  Direct  Primary  Bill 

States  Senate,  but  candidates  to  the  Legislature  are  given 
opportunity  to  pledge  themselves  to  respect  the  wishes 
of  the  voters  and  elect  to  the  Senate  the  candidate  who 
is  thus  endorsed.  The  Legislative  candidate  may  sign 
such  a  pledge,  or  he  may  sign  a  statement  that  he  will 
regard  the  popular  vote  for  United  States  Senator  as 
merely  advisory  and  not  binding. 

But  it  is  noticeable  that  in  Oregon  and  other  States 
where  such  wholesome  direct  primary  measures  have  be- 
come laws  the  legislative  candidate  signs  the  pledge  to 
abide  by  the  mandate  of  the  electors. 

Unquestionably  The  People  of  California  expected 
some  such  provision  in  the  California  Direct  Primary  law. 
Unfortunately,  however,  Senator  Wright,  who  had  charge 
of  the  bill,  is  not  at  all  in  sympathy  with  the  Oregon  plan. 
It  is  claimed  that  the  framers  of  the  bill  were  as  little  in 
sympathy  with  the  Oregon  plan  as  Senator  Wright  him- 
self. At  any  rate,  the  bill,  as  a  sort  of  compromise,  gave 
the  electors  opportunity  to  express  their  choice  for  United 
States  Senator  within  party  lines.  The  candidate  for 
the  Legislature  was  to  be  given  opportunity  to  pledge  him- 
self to  abide,  not  by  the  selection  of  the  electors  of  the 
State,  but  by  the  selection  of  the  electors  of  his  party.  36 

36  The  original  Wright-Stanton  bill  provided  two  pledges,  which 
the  candidate  for  the  Legislature  was  given  opportunity  to  sign. 
The  first  pledge  bound  him  to  abide  by  the  choice  of  the  electors 
of  his  party  for  United  States  Senator.  It  read  as  follows: 

"I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  California  and  to  The 

People  of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  District  that 

during  my  term  of  office,  without  regard  to  my  individual  prefer- 
ence, I  will  always  vote  for  that  candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
in  Congress  who  shall  have  received  for  that  office  the  highest  num- 
ber of  votes  cast  by  my  party  at  the  September  primary  election 
next  preceding  the  election  of  a  Senator  in  Congress." 

If  the  legislative  candidate  did  not  care  to  sign  this  pledge,  he 
was  given  the  alternative  of  signing  the  following: 

"I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  California  and  to  The  People 


Direct  Primary  Bill  75 

The  name  of  a  candidate  for  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate did  not,  under  the  original  Wright-Stanton  bill,  go 
on  the  final  ticket.  His  choice  was  confined  to  the  pri- 
maries and  was  at  best  to  be  regarded  only  by  the  legis- 
lators of  his  own  political  faith.  The  People  of  Cali- 
fornia were  not  to  be  given  a  direct  vote  in  the  selection 
of  United  States  Senators,  as  are  The  People  of  Oregon. 

If  the  framers  of  the  Wright- Stanton  Primary  bill 
thought  that  their  compromise  on  the  United  States  Sen- 
ator feature  of  the  measure  would  placate  the  machine, 
they  were  much  disappointed.  The  machine  fought  the 
arrangement  for  popular  selection  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators within  party  lines  as  positively  as  it  would  have  com- 
bated the  Oregon  plan  itself. 

Under  either  plan,  the  machine  recognized  there  was 
always  danger  that  the  selection  of  a  United  States  Sen- 
ator would  actually  be  made  by  The  People.  This  would 
mean  loss  to  the  machine  of  Federal  patronage,  and  Fed- 
eral patronage  is  the  sure  rock  upon  which  the  machine 

in  California  is  founded.     Indeed,  had  either  plan  been 

j 

incorporated  into  law,  the  re-election  of  Senator  Frank 
Flint  would  have  been  made  practically  impossible.  So 
the  machine  fought  the  Wright-Stanton  plan  as  stubbornly 
as  it  would  have  opposed  the  Oregon  plan. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  best  supporters  of  the  Direct 
Primary  idea  were  much  disappointed  that  the  Oregon 
plan  had  not  been  incorporated  into  the  bill.  Not  a  few 
of  them  grew  lukewarm  in  their  support  of  the  measure. 


of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  District  that  dur- 
ing my  term  of  office  I  shall  consider  the  vote  of  The  People  at  any 
primary  election  for  United  States  Senator  as  nothing  more  than 
a.  recommendation,  which  I  shall  be  at  liberty  wholly  to  disregard, 
if  I  see  fit." 


76  Direct  Primary  Bill 

The  extreme  partisanship  of  its  provisions  and  the  failure 
to  provide  for  popular  selection  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators hurt  the  measure  with  its  friends,  and  failed  to 
placate  its  enemies.  From  the  beginning  the  most  ef- 
fective arguments  against  the  bill  were  found  in  the  bill 
itself. 

This  was  demonstrated  at  the  public  hearing,  held 
January  26th,  to  consider  the  various  provisions  of  the 
measure.  The  principal  speakers  were  Hiram  Johnson 
and  Judge  John  F.  Davis. 

Mr.  Johnson  dealt  with  the  Direct  Primary  in  a  gen- 
eral way.  He  spoke  of  it  in  its  relation  to  practical  poli- 
tics, showing  that  an  effective  Direct  Primary  would  place 
this  Government  of  ours  back  into  the  hands  of  The 
People.  That  is  what  was  wanted.  Every  point  Johnson 
made  was  received  with  applause  from  the  crowd  that 
packed  the  Senate  Chamber.  And  when  Johnson  con- 
cluded with  an  appeal  for  "a  Direct  Primary  law  that 
shall  be  a  Direct  Primary  law  in  substance  and  not  in 
form  alone,"  he  was  cheered  to  the  echo. 

Judge  Davis  was  not  so  fortunate  in  his  text  as  was 
Mr.  Johnson.  Davis  was  there  to  discuss  the  details  of 
the  bill.  He  had  scarcely  begun  before  he  found  himself 
between  a  cross  fire  of  questions  from  those  on  the  one 
side  who  wanted  an  effective  measure  passed  and  on  the 
other  from  those  who  wanted  no  Direct  Primary  at  all. 
The  opponents  of  the  Direct  Primary  scored  few  points ; 
the  believers  in  the  measure  did. 

To  save  himself  from  a  ridiculous  position,  Davis  had 
to  evade  the  question  whether  he  would  rather  see  an 
able  and  effective  Democrat  elected  to  the  United  States 


Direct  Primary  Bill  77 

Senate  than  a  vicious  and  corrupt  Republican.  He  failed 
as  miserably  in  attempting  to  justify  the  extreme  partisan 
features  of  the  bill.  And  the  questions  which  Judge 
Davis  could  not  answer  came  from  men  who  wanted  to 
see  an  effective  Direct  Primary  measure  enacted,  not  from 
the  opponents  of  the  Direct  Primary  theory. 

Of  course  this  dissatisfaction  of  the  advocates  of  an 
effective  law  encouraged  the  machine  to  action.  The 
measure  was  deliberately  left  with  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tion Laws.  The  Anti-Gambling  bill  had  passed  both 
Houses  by  February  4th,  one  month  after  the  session  had 
opened.  But  on  that  date,  the  Committee  had  just  begun 
consideration  of  the  measure.  To  be  sure,  the  Election 
Laws  Committee  had  been  stacked  against  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill,  but  the  Public  Morals  Committee  had  been 
stacked  against  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  as  well.  But 
the  opponents  of  racetrack  gambling  were  satisfied  with 
the  Walker-Otis  bill,  while  the  proponents  of  the  Direct 
Primary  for  California  were  by  no  means  satisfied  with 
the  Wright-Stanton  bill. 

So  the  machine  dared  do  with  the  Direct  Primary  bill 
what  it  did  not  dare  do  with  the  Anti-Gambling  bill.  The 
Walker-Otis  bill  had  a  standing  which  the  Wright- 
Stanton  bill  did  not  have. 

That  the  Committee  on  Election  Laws  did  not  act 
early  in  the  session  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill  was  not 
because  of  the  purpose  of  Senator  Estudillo,  Chairman 
of  the  Committee.  Time  after  time  did  Estudillo  call 
meetings  for  consideration  of  the  bill,  and  repeatedly,  he 
found  only  himself,  and  Senators  Stetson  and  Wright  in 
attendance.  Finally,  in  February,  Senator  Estudillo  sue- 


78  Direct  Primary  Bill 

ceeded  in  getting  his  committee  together  for  considera- 
tion of  the  all-important  measure. 

That  the  machine  proposed  to  make  the  bill  inopera- 
tive was  recognized  from  the  moment  the  committee  was 
called  to  order.  The  manner  in  which  this  was  to  be 
done  developed  as  rapidly.  The  machine's  plan  was  as 
follows : 

( 1 )  As  to  candidates  : 

The  machine  proposed  to  amend  the  bill  so  that  either 
a  majority  or  a  high  plurality  vote  should  be  required  to 
nominate  candidates  at  the  primary  election.  In  the  event 
of  no  candidate  for  a  given  office  receiving  a  majority 
or  the  required  plurality,  the  nomination  was  to  be  made 
by  a  nominating  convention  as  under  the  old  convention 
system.  With  such  a  provision  it  would  have  been  easy 
for  the  machine  to  introduce  a  large  number  of  candi- 
dates at  the  primaries,  thus  making  it  impracticable  for 
any  one  of  them  to  receive  a  majority  or  even  a  high 
plurality  vote.  This  would  have  thrown  nominations  into 
a  convention.  Thus,  while  the  State  would  have  had  a 
Direct  Primary  law,  it  would  have  been  practically  im- 
possible to  nominate  a  candidate  under  its  provisions. 

(2)  As  to  United  States  Senators: 

To  deny  The  People  a  voice  in  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators,  the  machine  had  two  plans : 

(A)  To  cut  all  provisions  for  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  out  of  the  bill. 

(B)  Failing  in  this,  to  amend  the  bill  so  that  candi- 
dates for  the  Legislature  would  be  required  to  regard 
the  choice  of  the  electors  of  their  several  districts  as  ad- 
visory.    The  vote  was  in  no  way  to  be  held  binding, 


Direct  Primary  Bill  79 

nor  was  a  legislative  candidate  to  be  required  to  sign  a 
pledge  to  regard  in  any  way  the  wishes  of  the  electors. 
Under  this  arrangement  there  could  be  as  high  as  100 
candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate  endorsed  at  a 
single  election — eighty  from  Assembly,  twenty  from  Sen- 
atorial districts.  The  effect  would  be,  of  course,  the  en- 
dorsement of  at  least  several  candidates,  with  the  result 
that  the  Legislature  would  in  the  end  be  left  to  choose  as 
under  the  present  system.  Thus,  while  the  State  would 
have  a  law  which  apparently  gave  The  People  a  voice  in 
the  naming  of  Federal  Senators,  there  would  be  no  change 
whatever  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Federal  Senators 
were  nominated  and  elected. 


CHAPTER   IX. 
MACHINE  DEFEATED  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Reform  Forces,  Regardless  of  Party,  Unite  to  Secure  the 
Passage  of  an  Effective  Direct  Primary  Law — Agree 
on  a  Compromise  Measure  and  Succeed  in  Forcing  It 
Through  the  Senate — Machine  Badly  Beaten. 

Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego  introduced 
the  Direct  Primary  bill  in  the  Senate  on  January  8th,  and 
during  the  month  that  it  slumbered  in  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Election  Laws  there  was  no  reason  to  believe 
that  Senator  Wright  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  measure.  On  February  1st,  however,  Sen- 
ator Wright  made  the  astonishing  confession  before  the 
Committee  on  Election  Laws  that  he  was  not  in  sympa- 
thy with  that  provision  of  his  bill  which  gave  legislative 
candidates  opportunity  to  pledge  themselves  to  abide  by 
the  choice  of  the  electors  of  the  State  for  United  States 
Senator.  From  that  moment  began  Senator  Wright's 
fight  against  his  own  bill,  which  finally  landed  him  in  the 
camp  of  Leavitt,  Wolfe  and  the  other  machine  Senators. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Election 
Laws,  held  February  1st,  the  solid  six  on  the  Committee, 
Leavitt,  Wolfe,  Savage,  Hartman,  Kennedy  and  Hare, 
had  voted  two  amendments  into  the  bill  which  rendered 
it  absolutely  useless  for  practical  purposes. 

The  first  amendment  provided  that  a  majority  instead 
of  a  plurality  vote  should  nominate,  a  provision  as  uncon- 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  81 

stitutional  as  impracticable.  The  second  amendment  cut 
out  of  the  measure  all  provision  for  popular  vote  for 
United  States  Senators. 

This  decided  action  on  the  part  of  the  machine  had 
brought  consternation  upon  Estudillo  and  Stetson  who 
wanted  to  see  an  effective  measure  passed.  Wright  in 
this  crisis  took  the  floor  to  state  his  position. 

"For  my  part,"  said  Wright,  "I  would  never  sign  a 
pledge  to  vote  for  the  candidate  for  United  States  Sen- 
ator in  Congress  who  shall  have  received  for  that  office 
the  highest  number  of  votes  cast  by  my  party.  I  do  be- 
lieve, however,  that  the  people  of  this  State  demand  a 
partisan  Direct  Primary  law.  But  I  think  that  the  people 
of  Oregon  recognize  that  they  have  made  a  mistake  in 
going  so  far  as  they  have.  Under  the  pledge  required 
of  candidates  for  the  Legislature  in  the  measure  before 
us  (the  Wright  bill)  a  member  of  the  Legislature  might 
find  himself  compelled  to  vote  for  a  candidate  whom  the 
voters  of  his  district  opposed.  I  opposed  this  provision 
when  the  bill  was  drawn,  but  my  objection  was  overruled. 
I  now  stand  for  the  bill  as  it  has  been  introduced." 

Wolfe,  Leavitt  and  the  rest  of  the  machine  Senators 
grinned  exultantly  as  Wright  stated  that  he  did  not  ap- 
prove the  provisions  of  his  own  bill.  But  the  faces  of 
Estudillo  and  of  Stetson,  who  had  been  looking  upon 
Wright  as  their  leader  in  the  pro-primary  fight,  fell.  To 
employ  the  famous  expression  of  Speaker  Stanton  of  the 
Assembly,  they  felt  the  ground  slipping  from  under  their 
feet.  There  was  a  sensation  of  farther  slipping,  when 
Wright,  author  of  the  measure,  pro-primary  leader  and 
Call-heralded  reformer,  offered  an  amendment  as  substi- 


82  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

tute  for  popular  State-wide  choice  for  United  States  Sen- 
ator, by  making  the  vote  for  United  States  Senator  ad- 
visory only.37 

The  grin  of  satisfaction  on  the  faces  of  the  machine 
Senators  broadened  as  Wright  read  his  amendment  while 
the  faces  of  Estudillo  and  Stetson  grew  blanker.  But 
the  machine  Senators  were  in  no  hurry.  Things  were 
coming  their  way ;  there  was  no  reason  for  them  to  rush 
matters.  So  they  lazily  took  twenty-four  hours  to  think 
it  over.  Then  they  bluntly  rejected  Wright's  compromise, 
the  solid  six,  Wolfe,  Leavitt,  Savage,  Hartman,  Kennedy 
and  Hare  voting  against  its  acceptance. 

Estudillo  and  Stetson  voted  to  accept  the  compromise. 
They  explained  their  votes.  Their  explanations  showed 
their  earnestness  in  working  for  the  best  Direct  Primary 
measure  that  could  be .  passed — which  indicates  what 
might  have  been  done  under  other  leadership — and  a 
loyalty  to  Wright,  the  accepted  leader  in  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary fight,  which,  to  say  the  least,  was  misplaced. 

"With  this  amendment,"  said  Senator  Stetson,  in  ex- 
plaining his  vote,  "the  bill  is  not  one-half  so  strong  as  it 
was  before.  I  do  not  like  it.  But  I  must  train  with  one 
side  or  with  the  other,  and  for  that  reason  shall  vote  for 
Senator  Wright's  substitute." 

Senator  Estudillo  stated  that  he  voted  for  the  amend- 
ment against  his  better  judgment. 

"I  don't  believe  in  your  amendment,  Senator  Wright," 

37  Wright's  amendment  had  been  carefully  typewritten  before 
the  meeting.  It  read  as  follows: 

"Party  candidates  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  shall 
have  their  name  placed  on  the  official  primary  election  ballots  of 
their  respective  parties  in  the  manner  herein  provided  for  State 
office,  provided,  however,  that  the  vote  for  candidate  for  United 
States  Senator  shall  be  an  advisory  vote  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  sentiment  of  the  voters  in  their  respective  parties." 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  83 

said  Estudillo,  turning  to  that  gentleman.  "I  don't  think 
it  amounts  to  anything.  I  vote  with  you  against  my  bet- 
ter judgment.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  amendment  will 
give  The  People  what  they  want — an  opportunity  to  vote 
directly  for  candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate.  My 
opinion  is  that  we  should  pass  a  good  bill  or  no  bill  at  all. 
I  shall,  however,  yield  to  Senator  Wright,  who  is  the  rec- 
ognized leader  in  this  Direct  Primary  fight,  and  vote  for 
his  amendment." 

And  then  the  six  machine  members  rejected  the 
amendment. 

There  wasn't  much  left  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill. 
The  measure  was,  on  February  16th,  two  weeks  after  the 
application  of  the  committee's  pruning  knife,  reported 
back  to  the  Senate  with  all  reference  to  election  of  United 
States  Senators  stricken  from  it,  and  the  unconstitutional 
and  impracticable  majority  vote  required  for  the  nomina- 
tion of  candidates  for  office,  instead  of  the  constitutional 
and  practical  plurality  vote,  as  originally  provided  in  the 
bill. 

The  fact  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  two  Sen- 
ators on  the  Committee  on  Election  Laws  who  led  the 
fight  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  Leavitt  and  Wolfe, 
in  the  Committee  on  Public  Morals  led  the  fight  against 
the  Anti-Gambling  bill.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that 
two  of  their  most  docile  followers  in  the  Committee  on 
Election  Laws,  Kennedy  and  Hare,  are  "Democrats." 
There  was  no  partisanship  shown  in  the  ranks  of  the 
opponents  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill ;  machine  Democrats 
and  machine  Republicans  united  for  its  defeat.  But  when 
anti-machine  Republican  and  anti-machine  Democrats 


84  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

united  for  its  passage,  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  were  shocked 
beyond  measure. 

Machine  Senators  denounced  the  anti-machine  Repub- 
licans as  mongrels,  enemies  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
insisted  that  if  the  anti-machine  Republicans  persisted  in 
continuing  with  the  anti-machine  Democrats  to  secure  the 
passage  of  an  effective  Direct  Primary  law,  the  Repub- 
lican party  in  California  would  go  to  smash. 

The  arrogant  course  of  the  machine  members  of  the 
Election  Laws  Committee,  had  at  least  one  good  effect — 
it  drove  the  anti-machine  Republicans  and  the  anti- 
machine  Democrats  together  as  a  matter  of  self-defense. 
The  anti-machine  Republicans  and  Democrats  saw  the 
machine  Democrats  and  Republicans  united  to  defeat  the 
passage  of  an  effective  Direct  Primary  measure.  So  the 
anti-machine  Republicans  and  Democrats  organized  that 
they  might  successfully  combat  the  organized  machine 
Democrats  and  Republicans.  For  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  California  Legislature,  so  far  as  the  writer 
knows,  the  Senate  divided  on  the  only  practical  line  of 
division  for  the  enactment  of  good  measures  and  the  de- 
feat of  bad  ones — with  the  anti-machine  Senators  on  one 
side  and  the  machine  Senators  on  the  other. 

The  "band-wagon"  Senators  of  the  Welch  variety,  and 
the  doubtful  Senators,  were  left  for  the  moment  to  herd 
by  themselves. 

The  anti-machine  forces  held  meetings — caucuses  if 
you  like — to  decide  upon  the  course  to  be  pursued.  They 
numbered  at  first  twenty  members,  fifteen  Republicans 
and  five  Democrats.  The  Republicans  were  Bell,  Bird- 
sail,  Black,  Boynton,  Burnett,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Kurd, 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  85 

Price,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker 
and  Wright;  the  Democrats,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cart- 
wright,  Miller  and  Holohan.  George  Van  Smith,  of  the 
San  Francisco  Call,  credited  with  being  an  expert  on 
Direct  Primary  legislation,  was  admitted  to  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  twenty. 

Senator  Price,  however,  became  alarmed  at  the  ir- 
regularity of  anti-machine  Republicans  meeting  with  anti- 
machine  Democrats,  gathered  his  virtuous  partisan  skirts 
about  him  and  fled  in  dismay. 

Senator  Caminetti  also  left  the  meeting.  Caminetti  is 
a  strong  advocate  of  the  Oregon  plan  for  the  election  of 
United  States  Senators.  When  Caminetti  found  Senator 
Wright,  the  accepted  leader  of  the  pro-primary  forces, 
opposed  not  only  to  the  Oregon  plan,  but  to  any  plan  that 
would  give  electors  a  State-wide  vote  for  United  States 
Senators,  he  refused  to  go  to  Wright's  assistance.  Later 
on,  however,  when  Wright  went  to  Caminetti  pleading  for 
support,  Caminetti  agreed  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the 
anti-machine  caucus.  Curiously  enough,  after  the  ma- 
chine had  worn  the  anti-machine  forces  put,  Caminetti 
was  the  only  Senator  who  refused  to  accept  the  machine's 
amendments  to  the  bill  which  the  anti-machine  caucus 
had  agreed  upon. 

With  Price  and  Caminetti  out,  the  anti-machine  forces 
were  reduced  to  eighteen  Senators,  although  it  was 
known  that  Rush  sympathized  with  the  movement  but 
was  not  present  because  he  had  been  unavoidably  de- 
tained. 

The  eighteen  organized  by  electing  Senator  Estudillo 
chairman,  and  Senator  Boynton  secretary.  Senator  Wright 


86  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

made  a  short  address  in  which  he  virtually  threw 
up  his  hands.  He  told  what  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  ele- 
ment had  done  with  the  bill  in  committee,  and  stated 
that  unless  the  anti-machine  forces  got  together,  the  ma- 
chine would  amend  the  measure  into  ineffectiveness. 
Following  Wright's  address  the  anti-machine  Senators 
considered  the  original  Wright-Stanton  bill  under  three 
heads : 

(1)  Shall  a  mere  plurality,  or  a  majority,  or  a  high 
plurality  be  required  to  nominate  at  a  primary  election? 

(2)  Shall  the  partisan  features  be  eliminated  from 
the  measure? 

(3)  Shall  the  provisions  of  the  measure  be  extended 
to  the  election  of  United  States  Senators? 

The  first  question  was  brought  up  on  Stetson's  mo- 
tion that  a  twenty-five  per  cent  plurality  be  required  to 
nominate.  The  machine  aimed  to  fix  the  plurality  at 
forty  per  cent,  but  even  the  twenty-five  -  per  cent  com- 
promise was  denied.  The  motion  received  but  four  votes 
in  its  favor. 

Then  came  discussion  of  the  clause  quoted  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter,  which  requires  of  each  primary  candidate 
that  he  make  affidavit  that  he  supported  his  party  ticket 
at  the  previous  election,  and  proposes  to  support  it  at  the 
coming  election.  It  was  understood  by  all  who  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  Direct  Primary  bill  that  the  clause 
made  it  impossible  for  a  primary  candidate  to  run  on 
two  primary  tickets.  Cartwright  moved  that  the  clause 
be  stricken  from  the  bill.  The  motion  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  14  to  4.  Senators  like  Black  of  Santa  Clara 
voted  against  the  motion  in  the  interest  of  harmony,  al- 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  87 

though   personally  they   favored   the   elimination   of   all 
partisan  features. 

The  question  of  primary  nomination  of  candidates 
for  the  United  States  Senate  was  then  taken  up.  Sen- 
ator Wright  moved  that  the  vote  for  Senators  be  advisory 
only,  and  that  it  be  by  Assembly  and  Senatorial  districts 
instead  of  State-wide,  as  the  original  bill  provided.  The 
vote  was  as  follows : 

For  Wright's  motion — Burnett,  Wright — 2. 
Against  Wright's  motion — Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Cartwright,  Cutten,  Holohan,  Miller,  Roseberry,  Stet- 
son, Strobridge,  Walker — 12. 

Excised  from  voting — Campbell,  Estudillo,  Hurd, 
Thompson. 

A  scene  of  great  confusion  followed.  Campbell,  who 
had  refused  to  vote  because  he  insisted  upon  the  Oregon 
plan  of  electing  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of 
The  People,  insisted  that  the  provision  be  incorporated 
into  the  bill.  He  refused  to  be  bound  by  any  plan  that 
would  restrict  the  election  within  party  lines.  So  they 
blocked  Campbell  in  one  corner  of  the  room  with  a  table, 
and  reasoned  with  him.  Twenty-one  votes  were  required 
to  pass  the  Direct  Primary  bill  in  the  Senate.  At  that 
time  counting  Rush,  who  was  not  present  at  the  caucus, 
the  anti-machine  forces  had  only  nineteen.  They  could 
not  afford  to  lose  even  one  of  their  number. 

Above  the  confusion,  Senator  Holohan  managed  to 
make  his  voice  heard. 

"Gentlemen,"  he  said,  "I  would  like  to  have  the  Ore- 
gon plan  incorporated  into  this  bill.  But  that  seems  to 


88  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

be  impracticable  at  this  time.  Eventually,  I  am  sure  Cali- 
fornia will  adopt  the  Oregon  plan  of  naming  the  United 
States  Senator,  which  to  my  way  of  thinking  is  the  most 
common  sense,  the  fairest,  the  most  American  plan.  But 
if  we  are  to  pass  a  Direct  Primary  measure  at  the  present 
session,  we  must  reach  a  basis  of  compromise.  Let  us 
now  get  together  and  stand  together  on  a  measure  upon 
which  we  can  all  agree.  Let  us  pledge  ourselves  to 
abide  by  the  decision  of  this  meeting,  and  stand  or  fall 
by  the  bill  which  we  have  agreed  upon." 

Holohan's  counsel  prevailed.  The  Senators  present 
pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  meet- 
ing and  to  stand  or  fall  by  the  bill  which  they  had  agreed 
upon.  And  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  was  among  them 
and  was  bound  in  honor  as  every  Senator  present  was 
bound  in  honor  to  stand  by  the  bill  which  had  been 
agreed  upon. 

The  uniting  of  the  anti-machine  Senators  to  fight  the 
combined  machine  Democrats  and  Republicans  called 
down  upon  the  anti-machine  element  the  denunciation  of 
the  machine  press.  The  Calkins  newspapers,  for  example, 
sputtered  their  condemnation  of  Republican  Senators  who 
would  unite  with  Democratic  Senators  in  "rump  caucus." 

On  the  other  hand  the  San  Francisco  Call,  at  that  time 
warmly  supporting  the  anti-machine  movement  in  the 
Senate,  was  extreme  in  denouncing  Lieutenant-Governor 
Porter,  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  Leavitt,  Wolfe, 
and  all  others  who  were  opposing  the  passage  of  the 
Direct  Primary  measure  as  it  had  originally  been  intro- 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  89 

duced  by  Wright,  and  as  it  had  been  agreed  upon  in  the 
reform  caucus.  38 

The  fight  in  the  Senate  came  on  the  second  reading 
of  the  bill  February  18th.  On  the  16th,  however,  the 
setting  for  the  contest  had  been  fixed  by  the  majority  of 
the  Committee  on  Election  Laws,  which  reported  with 
favorable  recommendation  the  measure  as  the  Committee 
had  cut  it  to  pieces.  The  minority  of  the  Committee, 
Estudillo,  Stetson  and  Wright,  reported  back  the  bill 
agreed  upon  by  the  non-partisan  caucus  of  anti-machine 
Senators. 

But  the  fight  did  not  come  over  either  report.  When 
the  bill  came  up  on  the  18th  for  second  reading  and 
amendment,  Senator  McCartney,  on  behalf  of  the  machine 
forces,  introduced  a  resolution  over  which  the  contest 
waged.  McCartney's  resolution  provided  that  the  bill 
should  be  so  amended  that  the  primary  vote  for  United 
States  Senator  should  be  by  districts  and  advisory  only, 
and  that  for  county  and  local  offices  a  vote  of  25  per  cent 


38  On  February  17th  the  Call  said  of  Senator  Eddie  Wolfe's  op- 
position to  the  bill: 

"The  fight  (Direct  Piimary)  promises  to  be  both  spirited  and 
bitter.  Eddie  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco,  picked  by  the  machine  to 
make  its  fight  for  the  garroting  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  by  the 
injection  of  a  majority  nominating  clause,  has  served  notice  that  he 
proposes  to  tear  the  reformers  to  pieces." 

Of  Leavitt  and  other  machine  Senators,  the  Call  on  the  same 
date  said: 

"Leavitt,  who  bossed  the  fight  against  the  Otis-Walker  bill,  will 
furnish  the  brains  for  the  fight  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  and 
every  one  of  the  seven  who  voted  against  the  Otis-Walker  bill, 
are  more  or  less  frankly  against  the  primary  bill.  Savage,  who 
did  not  vote  against  the  Walker-Otis  bill  because  his  vote  would 
have  done  no  good,  and  Hartman  and  Hare,  who  did  vote  against 
the  Otis-Walker  bill,  have  gone  on  record  against  honest  direct 
primaries,  as  members  of  the  majority  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Election  Laws.  Savage  is  frank  enough  to  admit  that  he  is  op- 
posed to  any  direct  primary  law." 


90  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

and  for  State  offices  a  vote  of  40  per  cent  should  nomi- 
nate.39 

The  debate  was  over  this  resolution.  The  motion  for 
its  adoption  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven 
against  to  thirteen  for. 40 

Incidentally,  the  debate  settled  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant questions  affecting  the  bill,  namely,  the  percentage 
of  votes  to  be  required  for  primary  nominations.  The 
machine,  to  render  the  measure  inoperative,  was  contend- 
ing for  a  majority  or  at  least  a  high  plurality  vote,  while 
the  anti-machine  element  was  contending  for  a  mere 
plurality.  The  debate  developed  the  fact,  that  any  pro- 
vision for  other  than  a  mere  plurality  vote  would  be  un- 
constitutional. This  service  was  performed  by  Senator 


39  The  McCartney  resolution  was  in  full  as  follows: 
"Resolved,  That  Senate  Bill  No.  3,  and  all  pending  amendments 

thereto,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Elections  and  Election  Laws,  with  the  following  instructions: 

"1.  Amend  the  bill  so  as  to  give  an  advisory  vote  by  districts 
on  United  States  Senators. 

"2.  Amend  the  bill  by  providing  for  a  percentage  of  votes  be- 
fore nomination  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  as  follows:  If  the 
highest  candidate  for  any  county  or  local  office  receive  less  than 
25  per  cent  of  the  vote  of  his  party,  and  if  the  highest  candidate 
for  a  State  office  receive  less  than  40  per  cent  of  the  vote  of  his 
party,  that  the  nomination  shall  be  referred  to  a  convention  of 
delegates  elected  at  the  same  time  that  candidates  are  voted  on 
by  direct  vote. 

"3.  Amend  the  bill  by  providing  that  the  convention  aforesaid 
shall  prepare  the  platform  of  the  party  and  perfect  party  organiza- 
tion." 

40  The  vote  in  full  was  as  follows: 

Against  the  McCartney  amendment  and  in  effect  for  the  bill 
agreed  upon  by  the  anti-machine  Senators:  Anthony,  Bell,  Birdsall, 
Black,  Boynton,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin, 
Cutten,  Estudillo,  Holohan,  Kurd,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Miller,  Price, 
Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker, 
Welch,  Wright— 27. 

For  the  McCartney  amendment  and  in  effect  against  the  bill 
agreed  upon  by  the  anti-machine  Senators:  Bates,  Bills,  Finn, 
Hare,  Hartman,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  McCartney,  Reily,  Savage, 
Weed,  Willis,  Wolfe— 13.  - 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  91 

Cutten  of  Humboldt. 41  Senator  Cutten's  clear  presen- 
tation of  this  much  discussed  point,  settled  the  vote  per- 
centage question  right  there.  When  the  measure  was 
under  consideration  by  the  Assembly  Election  Laws  Com- 
mittee, Grove  L.  Johnson  did  suggest  that  a  40  per  cent 
plurality  be  required  to  nominate.  But  no  serious  at- 
tempt was  made  so  to  amend  the  bill,  after  Cutten's 
speech,  and  the  defeat  of  the  McCartney  amendment. 

Naturally,  the  anti-machine  forces  felt  warmly  en- 
couraged by  this  complete  defeat  of  the  machine.  The 
San  Francisco  Call,  the  recognized  advocate  of  the  Direct 


41  Cutten  showed  that  Section  13,  Article  XX  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution provides  that  "a  plurality  of  the  votes  given  at  any  elec- 
tion shall  constitute  a  choice  where  not  otherwise  directed  in  this 
Constitution." 

Senator  Cutten  then  proceeded  to  demonstrate  that  a  primary 
election  is  an  election  within  the  meaning  of  the  terms  used.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  Indiana  has  so  declared,  and,  coming  nearer 
home,  Cutten  showed  that  the  California  Supreme  Court  has  so 
held  also. 

In  The  People  vs.  Cavanaugh,  112  California,  the  Supreme  Court 
held  that  any  primary  election  that  should  become  mandatory  be- 
comes an  election  and  only  those  primaries  that  may  be  optional 
with  a  party  as  to  whether  or  not  they  should  be  held,  are  not 
elections. 

The  Wright- Stanton  bill  and  the  Direct  Primary  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  make  the  direct  primaries  mandatory,  nor  is  there 
anything  in  the  State  Constitution  providing  that  anything  other 
than  a  plurality  vote  shall  be  required  to  nominate.  For  the 
Legislature  to  have  yielded  to  the  machine's  demand  that  a  ma- 
jority or  high  plurality  vote  be  required  to  nominate  and  inserted 
such  a  provision  in  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  would  have  been  to 
render  that  measure  unconstitutional,  for  under  the  plain  provi- 
sions of  the  Constitution  only  a  plurality  vote  can  be  required  to 
nominate. 

Were  a  majority  or  even  high  percentage  plurality  vote  required 
to  nominate,  the  Direct  Primary  law  would  have  been  made  un- 
constitutional, because: 

1.  A  plurality  might  not  be  equal  to  the  percentage  or  majority. 

2.  A    percentage    or    majority    contemplates    a    convention    to 
nominate  in  case  the  candidate  does  not  receive  the  percentage  or 
majority,  and  a  convention,  the  best  authorities  hold,  is  prohibited 
under    the    constitutional    amendment    providing    for    the    primary 
election. 


92  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

Primary  bill,  the  next  day,  February  19th,  said  of  the  out- 
come: 

"Twenty-seven  Senators  at  Sacramento  stood  true 
to  their  party  pledges,  and  voiced  the  will  of  the 
people  in  their  votes  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill  yester- 
day. Thirteen  other  Senators  wrote  into  the  record 
conclusive  proof  of  their  unfitness  for  the  offices  they 
hold,  when  they  voted  against  the  Wright-Stanton 
bill,  and  for  the  corrupt  political  machine  which  is 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad.  Every  man  of  these 
thirteen  confessed  corruptionists  knew  what  he  was 
doing,  knew  whose  will  he  was  putting  above  The 
People's.  Every  one  of  these  thirteen  betrayers  of 
the  public  weal  has  written  the  epitaph  of  his  political 

tombstone." 

o 

The  Call  was  as  generous  in  its  praise  of  the  anti- 
machine  Democrats  and  Republicans  as  it  was  bitter 
against  the  machine  Senators  who  had  endeavored  to 
force  the  McCartney  amendment  into  the  bill.  While  that 
paper  printed  the  names  of  the  thirteen  in  bold,  black 
type  on  the  first  page  under  the  heading,  "These  Men 
Voted  for  the  Machine,"  in  type  just  as  bold  and  just  as 
black  it  printed  in  an  honor  column  the  names  of  the 
twenty-seven  who  had  voted  against  the  McCartney 
amendment,  under  the  heading,  "These  Men  Voted  for 
the  People." 

Said  the  Call  in  its  admirable  report  of  the  defeat  of 
the  McCartney  amendment,  of  the  original  nineteen  anti- 
machine  Senators  who  had  organized  to  resist  the  ma- 
chine : 

"Genuine  manhood  has  been  on  tap  at  every  con- 
ference of  the  independents.     They  have  not  squab- 


Machine  Defeated  in  Senate  93 

bled  for  partisan  advantage.  They  have  worked  to- 
gether to  give  The  People  an  honest  and  genuine 
Direct  Primary  measure.  Senator  Wright  won  a 
brilliant  fight.  He  won  it  with  and  through  the 
earnest  co-operation  of  the  unbossed  Democrats  and 
Republicans." 

Said  the  Call  of  the  measure  itself  in  its  issue  of  Feb- 
ruary 18th — the  day  of  the  defeat  of  the  machine  Sen- 
ators : 

"The  Direct  Primary  bill  is  The  People's  bill. 
Such  men  as  Dooling,  Wright,  Stanton,  Davis  and 
Cartwright  made  it.  There  is  no  honest  argument 
against  it,  there  will  be  no  honest  Senators  against  it." 

Such  was  the  view  of  the  Call  on  February  18.  Few 
were  willing  to  believe  on  that  date  that  within  a  month 
the  Call  would  'have  thrown  its  influence  on  the  side  of 
Leavitt  and  Wolfe  and  Warren  Porter  in  an  attempt  to 
force  part  of  the  McCartney  amendment  into  the  Direct 
Primary  bill.  It  did  not  seem  possible  then  that  within 
a  month  the  Call  would  be  denouncing,  ridiculing  and 
misrepresenting  Senators  whose  efforts  had  resulted  in 
the  defeat  of  the  McCartney  amendment  because  of  the 
refusal  of  these  anti-machine  Senators  to  join  with  the 
machine  Senators  whom  they  had  once  defeated,  and  ac- 
cept the  amendment  which  they  had  once  rejected.  It 
did  not  then  seem  possible  that  on  March  18th  the  Call 
would  be  behind  the  thirteen  "betrayers  of  the  public 
weal,"  itself  betraying  the  Senators  whose  "genuine  man- 
hood" had  on  February  18  appealed  to  its  editors  so 
strongly. 


94  Machine  Defeated  in  Senate 

But  such  was  to  be.  And,  too,  the  combination  of 
Calkins  Syndicate,  Lieutenant-Governor  Porter,  Senator 
Leroy  A.  Wright,  the  San  Francisco  Call  and  the  thirteen 
"betrayers  of  the  public  weal"  proved  too  much  for  the 
little  band  of  anti-machine  Senators.  And  what  is  more, 
backed  by  the  Call,  the  machine  leaders  finally  amended 
the  Direct  Primary  bill,  which  on  February  18th  the  Call 
had  stated  very  positively  no  honest  Senator  would  be 
against. 


CHAPTER  X. 
FIGHT  OVER  ASSEMBLY  AMENDMENTS. 

Machine  Succeeds  in  Amending  the  Direct  Primary  Bill 
in  the  Assembly — Assemblyman  Pulcifer  at  Critical 
Moment  Votes  with  the  Machine — Senate,  Although 
Held  Up  By  Machine  Element  for  a  Week,  Refuses  to 
Concur  in  Assembly's  Action. 

The  machine  Senators,  having  failed  to  amend  the 
Direct  Primary  bill  on  its  second  reading,  apparently  ac- 
cepted their  whipping,  and  allowed  the  measure  to  go 
through  third  reading  and  final  passage  without  opposi- 
tion. 42 

Twenty-seven  Senators  at  the  final  roll  call  voted  for 
it;  not  one  vote  was  cast  against  it.  Even  Leavitt  and 
Wolfe  voted  for  it.  The  anti-machine  Senators  had  won 
"a  glorious  victory." 

But  the  victory  was  one  tempered  with  grave  misgiv- 
ings on  the  part  of  careful  observers  of  machine  trickery. 
The  fact  that  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the  Senate  contained 
several  serious  clerical  and  typographical  errors,  and  that 
its  title  was  unsatisfactory  if  not  defective,  worried  the 
genuine  supporters  of  the  bill  not  a  little.  The  bill  had 
been  loosely  drawn  to  begin  with,  and  as  originally  intro- 
duced contained  most  unfortunate  clerical  errors,  which 
bobbed  up  at  most  inopportune  times. 


42  Senator  Wolfe,  on  the  day  of  his  defeat  In  the  Senate,  told 
the  writer  that  he  would  offer  no  further  opposition  to  the  passage 
of  the  bill. 


96  The  Assembly  Amendments 

At  every  stage  of  its  passage  in  the  Senate  such  erroi 
were  uncovered,  and  after  it  had  passed  second  reading 
no  less  than  eight  serious  errors  were  discovered  to  be  sti 
in  the  bill.  The  only  way  these  errors  could  be  correcte 
was  by  amendment. 

The  errors  were  called  to  the  attention  of  Senate 
Wright  and  of  George  Van  Smith  of  the  Call,  who  wei 
urged  to  have  them  corrected  in  the  Senate  that  the  bi 
might  go  to  the  Assembly  letter  perfect,  and  without  n< 
cessity  of  amendment. 43  But  both  Van  Smith  an 
Wright  were  of  the  opinion  that  time  would  be  gained  b 
leaving  the  Assembly  to  make  the  corrections. 

The  bill  as  it  finally  passed  the  Senate  was  a  defectrv 
bill,  the  defects  of  which  could  be  corrected  in  the  Assen 
bly  only  by  amendment.  In  the  end  the  fate  of  the  mea: 
ure  was  made  to  hinge  on  these  clerical  and  typographic; 
defects. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Election  Laws  had  bee 
stacked  against  the  passage  of  a  Direct  Primary  bill,  pr< 
cisely  as  the  Senate  Committee  had  been.  At  the  fir; 
meeting  held  by  the  Committee  to  consider  the  measur 
it  became  evident  that  the  majority  of  the  Committe 
would,  if  it  could,  put  the  McCartney  amendments,  whic 
had  been  defeated  in  the  Senate,  into  the  bill. 

Leeds,  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  moved  that  tl~ 
primary  vote  for  United  States  Senator  be  made  advisor 
and  by  districts  only,  while  Grove  L.  Johnson,  in  spil 
of  the  fact  that  such  a  provision  is  impracticable  and  ur 
constitutional,  stated  that  he  wished  a  provision  in  th 


43  Charles  R.  Detrick  of  Palo  Alto,  for  example,  called  the  atter 
tlon  of  both  Wright  and  Van  Smith  to  the  errors,  and  offered  h 
services  for  their  correction,  but  his  offer  was  declined. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  97 

bill  requiring  a  40  per  cent  plurality  to  nominate,  instead 
of  a  mere  plurality. 

Leeds  and  Johnson,  taken  together,  stood  for  precisely 
what  the  machine  had  stood  for  in  the  Senate,  namely,  an 
advisory,  district  vote  for  United  States  Senators  and  a 
40  per  cent  plurality  vote  to  nominate. 

Speaker  Stanton,  although  not  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee, was  present  at  the  meeting,  and  although  he  had 
introduced  the  bill  in  the  Assembly,  announced  that  he 
was  ior$&  amending  the  measure  that  the  vote  for  United 
States  Senator  should  be  made  merely  advisory  and  by 
districts.  This  was  pretty  strong  intimation  that  there 
was  trouble  ahead  for  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  Stanton 
was  in  effect  throwing  down  his  own  bill. 

After  several  meetings,  the  Committee  adopted  amend- 
ments providing  for  the  Leeds-suggested  advisory  district 
vote  for  United  States  Senators,  providing  for  correction 
of  the  clerical  and  typographical  errors,  and  providing  an 
oath  from  primary  candidates  that  they  would  abide  by 
the  platform  of  their  party  to  be  adopted  after  their  nomi- 
nation. This  last  amendment  was  defeated  in  the  As- 
sembly. 

The  only  real^  opposition  in  the  Committee  to  the  ma- 
chine's plan  to  make  the  primary  vote  for  United  States 
Senators  advisory  only  and  by  district,  came  from  Assem- 
blymen Hinkle  of  San  Diego  and  Drew  of  Fresno.  Drew 
was  ill  most  of  the  time  and  could  not  attend  the  meet- 
ings. The  brunt  of  the  fight  for  a  State-wide  vote  for 
United  States  Senators,  therefore,  fell  on  Hinkle. 

He  fought  well. 

Every  effort  was  made  to  pull  him  down.  He  was 
told  that  his  bills  would  be  "killed." 


98  The  Assembly  Amendments 

He  was  deliberately  misrepresented  in  papers  whi< 
were  endeavoring  to  force  into  the  bill  the  advisory  di 
trict  vote  amendment,  which,  as  introduced  in  the  Sena 
by  McCartney,  had  been  rejected  by  the  anti-machine  Se 
ators.  Leavitt  and  Wolfe  and  Warren  Porter  were  f 
the  amendment,  but  the  anti-machine  Senators  continu< 
against  it  as  they  had  on  February  18th,  the  day  of  th( 
"glorious  victory"  over  the  machine  in  the  Direct  Prima 
fight. 

But,  astonishing  as  it  may  seem,  the  San  Francis 
Call,  44  which  up  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  in  the  Sena 
had  fought  the  machine  Senators  so  valiantly,  was  givii 
indication  of  siding  with  Wolfe  and  Leavitt.  In  its  : 
sue  of  March  6th,  the  Call  stated  that  Hinkle  was  alo 
of  the  Assembly  Committee  battling  for  the  bill  as 
passed  the  Senate.  In  another  sentence  the  Call  sai 
"Leeds,  Rech,  Hinkle  and  Pugh  voted  for  the  adviso 
vote  amendments." 

That  sentence  was  shown  about  the  Capitol,  and  on 
was  based  the  story  that  Hinkle  had  "fallen  down,"  ai 
would  vote  with  the  machine.  All  this  added  to  the  co 
fusion  of  the  situation. 

But  Hinkle  had  not  "fallen  down."  He  was  in  t 
fight  just  as  hard  as  ever,  and  with  Assemblyman  Bohn< 
organized  the  reform  element  in  the  Assembly  to  fight  t 
machine  amendments. 

Those  who  were  endeavoring  to  force  the  adviso 
district  plan  for  nomination  of  Senators  into  the  bill  to< 
the  most  astonishing  methods  to  force  it  upon  the  am 

44  The  Call's  course  is  all  the  more  reprehensible  from  t 
fact  that  it  had  for  two  years  been  declaring  for  an  effective  Dire 
Primary  law,  and,  indeed,  assumed  all  the  credit  for  the  agitati 
for  the  reform. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  99 

machine  Senators.     For  example,  the  San  Francisco  Call 
of  March  4th  said  of  it: 

"The  amendments  proposed  by  Leeds  and  sup- 
ported by  Stanton  are  not  even  remotely  related  to 
the  McCartney  proposition,  which  was  voted  down 
in  the  Senate." 

The  Call's  statement  was  easily  disproved,  but  it  un- 
questionably confused  the  anti-machine  legislators,  who 
were  insisting  upon  retaining  the  provision  for  State-wide 
vote  for  Senators  in  the  bill.  45 

And  then  came  the  cry  that  those  who  were  opposing 
the  Leeds-McCartney  amendment  were  enemies  of  the 
Direct  Primary,  for  the  Assembly,  it  was  alleged,  was 
overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  and  would 
not  pass  the  bill  without  it.  Jere  Burke,  John  C.  Lynch, 
and  other  patriots  of  their  ilk  were  most  insistent  in  ex- 
pression of  this  fear.  But  such  men  as  Bohnett,  Hinkle, 
Drew  and  other  recognized  anti-machine  leaders  in  the 
Assembly  were  not  to  be  bluffed  in  this  way.  They  stood 
firmly  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the 
Senate. 

45  The  Leeds  amendment,  which  the  Call  stated  was  in  no  way 
related  to  the  McCartney  amendment,  read  as  follows: 

"Party  candidates  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  shall 
have  their  names  placed  on  the  official  primary  election  ballots 
of  their  respective  parties  in  the  manner  herein  provided  for  State 
officers,  provided,  however,  that  the  vote  for  candidates  for  United 
States  Senator  shall  be  an  advisory  vote  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  sentiment  of  the  voters  of  the  respective  Senatorial 
and  Assembly  Districts  in  the  respective  parties." 

The  McCartney  amendment  of  that  section  of  the  bill  dealing 
with  the  nomination  of  Senators  read: 

"Amend  the  bill  so  as  to  give  an  advisory  vote  by  districts  on 
United  States  Senators." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Leeds  amendment  and  the  McCartney 
amendment  were  not  remotely,  but  very  closely  related;  were,  in 
effect,  the  same. 


ioo  The  Assembly  Amendments 

The  fight  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  came  over 
Leeds'  motion  to  amend  the  bill  by  making  the  vote  for 
United  States  Senator  advisory  only  and  by  districts. 
The  vote  on  Leeds'  motion  was  37  to  37.  The  "over- 
whelming majority"  favoring  the  amendment,  in  spite  of 
the  use  of  every  pull  at  the  command  of  the  machine,  had 
not  materialized.  As  a  majority  vote  was  necessary  to 
read  the  amendment  into  the  bill,  a  moment  more  and 
Speaker  Stanton  would  have  been  forced  to  declare  the 
amendment  lost.  This  would  have  meant  final  defeat  for 
the  machine,  and  the  Direct  Primary  bill  as  it  had  passed 
the  Senate  would  have  gone  to  final  passage. 

At  this  critical  moment  in  the  bill's  history,  however, 
Assemblyman  Pulcifer,  46  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League 
member  from  Alameda  county,  got  into  action.  He  had 
voted  against  the  amendment.  But  with  his  vote  really 
meaning  defeat  for  the  machine  element,  he  promptly 
changed  his  vote  from  no  to  aye.  This  made  the  vote  38 
for  the  amendment  and  36  against  it.  The  amendment 


46  A  similar  example  of  Pulcifer's  trickiness  attended  the  defeat 
in  the  Assembly  of  Boynton's  Senate  bill  providing  for  a  non- 
partisan  column  on  the  election  ballot  for  candidates  for  the 
judiciary.  The  measure  had  the  backing  of  the  reform  element, 
and  passed  the  Senate  with  but  little  opposition.  At  that  time 
it  would  have  had  even  easier  sailing  in  the  Assembly.  But  the 
machine  succeeded  in  preventing  action  on  the  measure  in  the 
Assembly  until  a  few  hours  before  adjournment.  In  the  rush  of 
the  close  of  the  session,  the  measure,  it  is  alleged,  was  made 
subject  of  pretty  vicious  trading.  But  when  it  came  to  a  show- 
down thirty-five  votes  were  cast  for  the  measure  and  twenty-nine 
against.  Six  more  votes  would  have  passed  it.  Had  there  been 
full  attendance  the  bill  would  have  been  passed.  A  call  of  the 
House  was  ordered  to  compel  such  attendance,  but  was  finally  dis- 
continued, by  Pulcifer,  who  had  voted  for  the  bill,  voting  for  dis- 
continuance, thus  tying  the  vote.  This  gave  Speaker  Stanton  an 
opportunity  to  end  proceedings  under  the  call  of  the  House,  by 
casting  the  deciding  vote  against  continuance.  Stanton,  with  Pul- 
cifer's assistance,  thus  cast  what  was  practically  the  deciding  vote 
that  killed  the  bill.  Had  the  call  of  the  House  been  continued 
until  all  the  Assemblymen  were  brought  in,  the  measure  would 
probably  have  been  passed. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  101 

which  the  anti-machine  Senators  had  fought  so  valiantly 
and  so  effectively  was  finally  read  into  the  bill.  47 

The  amendments  necessary  to  correct  the  typograph- 
ical and  clerical  errors  which  had  been  permitted  to  re- 
main in  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate,  together  with  a 
number  of  ridiculous  amendments — which  were  finally  re- 
jected by  both  Houses — were  then  adopted,  and  the  bill 
sent  to  the  Senate.  48 

The  fact  developed  almost  immediately  that  if  the  Sen- 
ate refused  to  concur  in  the  Assembly  amendment  forcing 
the  advisory  district  vote  into  the  bill  the  Assembly 
would  recede  from  the  amendment.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
Assemblyman  Collum,  who  voted  for  the  amendment 

47  The  vote  in  full  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment  and  against  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the 
Senate:  Barndollar,  Beatty,  .Beban,  Black,  Butler,  Coghlan,  Col- 
lier, Collum,  Cronin,  Cullen,  Feeley,  Greer,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans, 
Hawk,  Grove  L.  Johnson,  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Johnston  of  Con- 
tra Costa,  Leeds,  Lightner,  Macauley,  McClellan,  McManus,  Mel- 
rose,  Mott,  Nelson,  O'Neil,  Ferine,  Pugh,  Pulcifer,  Rech,  Ruther- 
ford, Schmitt,  Stanton,  Transue,  Wagner,  Wheelan — 38. 

Against  the  amendment  and  for  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate: 
Beardslee,  Bohnett,  Callan,  Cattell,  Cogswell,  Costar,  Dean,  Drew, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  Gibbons,  Gillis,  Griffiths,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Hinkle, 
Holmquist,  Irwin,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Maher,  Men- 
denhall,  Moore,  Odom,  Otis,  Polsleyr  Preston,  Sackett,  Silver, 
Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Whitney,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young — 36. 

48  When  a  bill  passed  by  the  Senate  is  amended  in  the  Assembly 
the   measure   goes    back   to   the   Senate.      If   the    Senate   concur   in 
the  amendments,  that  settles  the  matter.     But  if  the  Senate  refuse 
to  concur,  then  the  bill  goes  back  to  the  Assembly,  where  that  body 
may   recede   from   its   amendments   or   refuse   to   recede. 

If  the  Assembly  recede,  the  measure  goes  to  the  Governor  just 
as  it  passed  the  Senate.  If  the  Assembly  refuse  to  recede,  the 
measure  is  referred  to  a  conference  committee  of  six,  three  ap- 
pointed by  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  and  three  by  the  President 
of  the  Senate. 

The  Conference  Committee  may  consider  only  the  amendments 
adopted  by  the  Assembly.  If  the  Conference  Committee  fail  to 
agree,  or  if  either  Senate  or  Assembly  reject  its  report,  then  the 
bill  goes  to  a  Committee  on  Free  Conference.  The  Committee  on 
Free  Conference  is  permitted  to  make  any  amendment  it  sees 
fit.  If  its  report  be  rejected  by  either  Senate  or  Assembly,  the  bill 
gets  no  further;  is  dead,  without  possibility  of  resurrection. 

Such  was  the  maze  of  technicality  into  which  Lincoln-Roosevelt 
Leaguer  Pulcifer  threw,  the  Direct  Primary  bill  when  he  changed 
his  vote  from  no  to  aye  on  the  Leeds  amendment. 


IO2  The  Assembly  Amendments 

March  9th,  voted  on  March  22d  to  recede  from  it.  Had 
the  anti-machine  forces  in  the  Assembly  been  held  to- 
gether, as  they  could  have  been  had  the  question  of  re- 
ceding been  put  up  to  them  fairly,  few  other  changes  with 
Collum's  would  have  been  sufficient  to  assure  success  for 
the  anti-machine  forces. 

But  in  spite  of  the  situation  in  the  Assembly,  Senator 
Wright,  who  was  by  this  time  working  openly  with 
Wolfe,  Leavitt  and  Warren  Porter  to  secure  the  adoption 
of  the  Leeds  amendment  (which  as  the  McCartney 
amendment  the  Senate  had  already  rejected),  was  insist- 
ing that  the  Assembly  would  not  recede,  and  that  unless 
the  Senate  concurred  with  the  Assembly  amendment, 
nothing  could  save  the  Direct  Primary  bill  from  being 
cut  to  pieces  in  Free  Conference  Committee. 

Nevertheless,  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  19  against  to  20 
for  concurrence,  did  refuse  to  concur,  21  votes  being  nec- 
essary for  concurrence. 

Senator  Stetson  was  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken, 
being  ill  at  his  home  in  Alameda  county.  Had  he  been 
present  he  would  have  voted  against  concurrence  in  the 
amendments.  This  would  have  made  the  vote  20  to  20. 

Originally,  on  February  18th,  twenty-seven  Senators 
had  voted  against  the  Leeds-McCartney  amendment,  but 
when  Senator  Wright  switched  to  the  machine,  Senators 
Hurd  and  Burnett  wobbled  along  after  him.  The  four 
band-wagon  Senators,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Price  and  Welch, 
tagged  along  after  them.  This  made  the  vote : 

Against  concurrence  in  the  amendment  and  for  the 
bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate — Anthony,  Bell,  Birdsall, 
Black,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cur- 


The  Assembly  Amendments  103 

tin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Holohan,  Miller,  Roseberry,  Rush, 
Sanford,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker — 19. 

For  concurrence  in  the  amendment  and  against  the 
bill  as  it  originally  passed  the  Senate — Bates,  Bills,  Bur- 
nett, Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Kurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt, 
Lewis,  Martinelli,  McCartney,  Price,  Reily,  Savage, 
Weed,  Welch,  Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright— 20. 

Every  one  of  the  thirteen  Senators  who  opposed  the 
bill  when  it  was  first  before  the  Senate,  voted  to  concur. 
Wright,  Welch,  Price,  Martinelli,  Lewis,  Burnett  and 
Kurd  joining  them,  made  their  number  twenty. 

Under  the  rules  which  govern  the  Senate,  in  the 
event  of  a  tie  vote,  all  the  Senators  voting,  the  President 
of  the  Senate,  in  this  case  Warren  Porter,  has  the  cast- 
ing vote. 

Had  Senator  Stetson  been  present,  he  would  have 
voted  with  the  anti-machine  Senators.  This  would  have 
made  the  vote  20  to  20.  Warren  Porter  would  then 
have  had  the  deciding  vote.  He  would  have  voted  to 
concur.  Senator  Stetson's  illness  temporarily  saved  the 
Direct  Primary  bill. 

In  the  ordinary  course  of  legislative  business,  the 
Senate  having  refused  to  concur  in  the  Assembly  amend- 
ment, the  bill  would  have  gone  back  to  the  Assembly, 
the  Assembly  would  have  receded  from  the  amendment, 
and  the  machine's  defeat  would  have  been  final.  But 
the  quick-witted  Wolfe  saw  a  way  to  prevent  such  action. 
He  promptly  moved  that  the  Senate  reconsider  the  vote 
by  which  it  had  refused  to  concur  in  the  Assembly 
amendment.  Wolfe  commanded  twenty  votes  of  the 
Senators  present,  the  anti-machine  element  nineteen. 


IO4  The  Assembly  Amendments 

Wolfe  required,  however,  twenty-one  to  compel  recon- 
sideration. But  when  the  question  came  up,  Wolfe  still 
lacked  the  one  vote  necessary  for  reconsideration,  the 
anti-machine  element  was  still  without  the  necessary 
twenty  votes  to  tie  the  Senate,  thus  giving  Warren  Por- 
ter the  deciding  vote.  Wolfe,  however,  with  his  twenty 
votes,  postponed  consideration  of  his  motion  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  the  Senate  had  refused  to  concur. 
A  somewhat  extraordinary  parliamentary  situation,  to 
say  the  least.  But  it  answered  the  machine's  purpose. 
For  a  week49a  the  machine  was  able  to  hold  the  Senate 
in  deadlock.  All  business  was  practically  suspended.  For 
hours  the  reform  Senators  were  compelled  to  sit  in 
their  seats  waiting  the  pleasure  of  President  Porter  and 
President  Pro  Tern.  Wolfe  to  call  the  Senate  to  order. 
The  folly  of  permitting  the  machine  to  organize  the 
Senate  was  forced  home  to  every  good-government  man 
present.  The  machine  because  it  controlled  the  Senate 
organization  could  and  did  arrogantly  override  the 
rights  of  the  Senate,  giving  the  ultimatum  that  no  busi- 
ness should  be  transacted  until  the  anti-machine  Sena- 
tors had  concurred  in  the  machine  amendments  to  the 
Direct  Primary  bill. 

The  machine's  play  was  to  bully,  bluff  or  beg  one  of 

49a  The  postponements  were  made  from  hour  to  hour.  The 
reform  Senators  would  be  informed  that  the  matter  would  be 
taken  up  at  eleven  o'clock  in  the  forenoon.  At  that  hour,  the 
machine  would  postpone  consideration  until  three  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon.  At  three  o'clock,  further  postponement  would  be 
ordered  until  eight  o'clock.  At  eight  o'clock  there  would  be  post- 
ponement until  the  next  morning.  Twenty-one  votes  were  neces- 
sary for  concurrence  in  the  Assembly  Amendments,  but  a  ma- 
jority of  those  voting  was  sufficient  to  secure  postponement.  The 
machine  on  this  issue  controlled  twenty  votes,  one  short  of 
enought  for  concurrence,  but  one  more  than  the  nineteen  con- 
trolled by  the  anti-machine  element,  and  hence  enough  to  post- 
pone from  hour  to  hour  consideration  of  Wolfe's  motion. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  105 

the  anti-machine  Senators  to  desert  to  the  machine,  which 
would  have  given  the  machine  twenty-one  votes,  enough 
for  concurrence,  or,  failing  in  this,  to  force  the  attend- 
ance of  Senator  Stetson,  which  would  have  tied  the 
Senate,  thus  giving  Warren  Porter  the  deciding  vote. 
But  before  Senator  Stetson,  pale  and  plainly  on  the  verge 
of  breakdown,  could  be  brought  to  Sacramento,  Senator 
Black  became  very  ill  and  was  obliged  to  go  to  his  home 
at  Palo  Alto.  Thus  when  Stetson  returned,  the  vote 
stood  20  to  19,  precisely  where  it  had  been  before.  Per- 
former Porter  was  still  denied  the  privilege  of  casting 
the  deciding  vote.  For  once  the  machine  found  itself 
squarely  against  a  stone  wall,  with  the  sympathy  of 
the  public  strongly  against  its  creatures  and  methods. 
Night  after  night  as  the  fight  went  on,  the  Senate  gal- 
lery was  packed  with  interested  spectators,  who  cheered 
the  anti-machine  Senators  to  the  echo.  There  were  no 
cheers  for  the  machine,  but  on  one  occasion  at  least  the 
machine  was  hissed,  when  one  of  its  creatures  attempted 
an  attack  on  Senator  Black. 

Never  did  the  machine  work  harder  to  switch  anti- 
machine  Senators  to  its  side.  Jere  Burke  had  charac- 
teristic corner  conferences,  Johnny  Lynch  labored  with 
anti-machine  Senators  openly  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
chamber,  as  did  Warren  Porter.  From  a  southern  county 
came  the  Chairman  of  the  Republican  County  Committee 
to  tell  his  Senator  who  was  voting  with  the  anti-machine 
element  what  a  mistake  he  was  making.  P.  H.  McCar- 
thy ''happened  in"  and  worked  with  George  Van  Smith 
of  the  Call  and  Eddie  Wolfe  in  the  fruitless  attempt 


io6  The  Assembly  Amendments 

made  to  "pull  down"  Senator  Anthony.49  Anti-machine 
Senators  found  their  pet  bills  being  held  up  in  Assembly 
Committees. 

But  the  nineteen  anti-machine  members  stood  firm, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Senator  Wright,  who  had  orig- 
inally led  them,  and  George  Van  Smith,  of  the  Call,  who 
had  originally  advised  them,  and  the  Call,  which  had 
originally  backed  them,  were  all  working  on  the  side  of 
Leavitt  and  Wolfe  and  Porter  and  the  thirteen  Senators 
of  whom  the  Call  had  said  on  February  19,  when  they 
had  voted  for  the  amendment  which  they  were  still  sup- 
porting, "Every  man  of  these  thirteen  confessed  corrup- 
tionists  knew  what  he  was  doing — knew  whose  will  he 
was  putting  above  The  People's  will.  Every  one  of 
these  thirteen  betrayers  of  the  public  weal  has  written 
the  epitaph  of  his  political  tombstone." 

And  then  the  machine  forces  attacked  Senator  Black. 
Although  Senator  Black  was  lying  ill  at  his  home  at 
Palo  Alto,  the  Call  on  March  18  stated  that  he  was  in 
hiding  in  Sacramento. 

The  Call  on  the  same  date  expressed  its  deep  regret 
for  and  its  utter  condemnation  of,  the  "asinine  filibuster, 
designed  to  prevent  a  tie  vote  which  would  be  decided 
by  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Warren  Porter,  in  favor  of 
concurrence  in  the  Assembly  amendment  to  the  Direct 
Primary  bill." 

On  February  18  the  Call  had  objected  very  strenu- 
ously to  Porter's  attitude  toward  the  Direct  Primary 
bill.  The  Call  on  that  date  said : 


49  It  is  very  amusing  less  than  three  months  later  to  see  those 
partners  of  the  Direct  Primary  fight,  P.  H.  McCarthy  and  the  San 
Francisco  Call,  in  fierce  political  conflict  at  San  Francisco. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  107 

"To-day  the  wolves  (a  pet  name  for  the  ma- 
chine Senators),  urged  by  their  masters,  will  make 
their  last  stand  in  the  Senate  against  a  people  de- 
termined to  be  free.  Warren  Porter,  the  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor  of  the  fatted  soul,  who  professes 
all  the  virtues  and  practices  all  political  evil,  will 
be  the  whipper-in." 

One  month  later,  March  18,  the  Call  was  complain- 
ing bitterly  that  the  anti-machine  Senators  would  not  per- 
mit the  same  "Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  fatted  soul" 
to  whip  them  into  line  for  the  amendment  to  the  Direct 
Primary  bill,  which  they  had  rejected  on  February  18, 
and  for  which  the  Call  had  praised  them  generously. 
The  Call's  special  representative  at  Sacramento,  George 
•Van  Smith,  was  by  this  time  working  openly  with  Por- 
ter, Wolfe,  Leavitt,  Hartman,  Lynch  and  Burke  to  com- 
pel Senate  concurrence  in  the  Assembly  amendments, 
while  Senators  Boynton,  Black,  Miller,  Campbell,  Holo- 
han,  Stetson  and  the  other  anti-machine  Senators  whom 
the  Call  had  formerly  backed  in  their  efforts  against  the 
machine,  had  become  "pin-head  politicians,"  in  the  col- 
umns of  the  Call,  intent  upon  defeat  of  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill. 

The  Call's  extraordinary  change  and  outrageous  con- 
demnation of  the  anti-machine  Senators  of  course  brought 
its  protest.  The  people  of  Palo  Alto  met  in  mass  meet- 
ing on  March  21st,  and  adopted  resolutions  condemning 
the  Call's  course. 50  Senator  Black  from  his  sick  bed 


50  The  resolutions  adopted  at  Palo  Alto  read:  "Resolved,  That 
we  note  with  disapproval  the  changed  attitude  of  the  San  Francisco 
Call  upon  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  and  its  attempt  to  discredit 
Senator  Black  and  other  friends  of  good  government  in  the  Legis- 
lature." 


io8  The  Assembly  Amendments 

wrote  a  letter  showing  the  Call's  insincerity  and  breach 
of  faith  with  the  pro-primary  Senators.51  The  paper 
was  bitterly  denounced  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 

But  throughout  the  State  the  newspapers  which  stand 
for  good  government,  and  incidentally  for  an  effective 
direct  primary  law,  were  firm  in  their  support  of  the  anti- 
machine  Senators.  Just  before  Senator  Black  was  taken 
ill,  for  example,  at  the  time  when  Senator  Stetson  was 
unable  to  be  at  the  capital,  the  Sacramento  Star,  in  an 
editorial  article  under  the  heading,  "Illness  a  Blessing," 
cleverly  put  in  a  nutshell  what  the  people  were  thinking 
and  the  reform  press  was  saying.  "We  do  not  desire 
to  wish  Senator  Stetson  any  bad  luck,"  said  The  Star, 
"but  if  his  slight  indisposition  should  continue  for  a  few 

51  Senator  Black's  letter  covered  the  situation  fully.  It  was 
addressed  to  the  press  of  the  State,  and  was  as  follows:  "No 
decent  primary  law  would  have  been  possible  but'  for  the  com- 
bination of  thirteen  Republicans  and  seven  Democrats  in  the 
Senate  who  have  stood  together  throughout  this  whole  fight. 
Senator  Wright  and  the  'Call'  were  powerless  in  the  contest  until 
these  twenty  Senators  got  behind  them. 

"One  of  the  conditions  of  this  combination  was  a  State-wide 
vote  on  United  States  Senator,  and  the  'Call'  fought  with  us 
against  Senators  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  on  this  proposition.  Im- 
mediately after  the  bill  left  the  Senate  and  got  into  the  Assembly 
the  'Call'  began  to  display  a  lack  of  interest  in  the  primary  fight. 
If  it  had  maintained  its  attitude  in  favor  of  the  original  bill  these 
amendments  never  would  have  been  proposed  by  the  Assembly. 

"When  the  question  of  concurring  in  the  Assembly  amendments 
comes  up,  we  find  the  'Call'  and  Senator  Wright  deserting  the  men 
who  made  the  primary  fight  in  the  Senate  and  going  over  to  the 
camp  of  the  'push'  politicians,  who  have  always  favored  the  district 
plan  of  nominating  United  States  Senators. 

"I  take  issue  with  the  'Call'  when  it  says:  'As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  whole  question  of  the  United  States  Senatorship  is  of  little  im- 
portance to  the  people  of  California,'  etc. 

"The  United  States  Senatorship  is  the  most  important  office  to 
be  filled  by  the  people  of  California  under  the  provisions  of  the 
proposed  Direct  Primary  law.  The  so-called  district  plan  for 
nominating  United  States  Senators  is  worse  than  a  makeshift.  It 
provides  for  no  pledge  on  the  part  of  candidates  and  would  be 
purely  a  straw  vote,  binding  on  nobody. 

"The  stubborn  fact  remains  that  the  'Call,'  after  leading  in  the 
fight  for  an  honest  Direct  Primary  law  for  two  years  and  a  half, 
has  deserted  the  cause  of  the  people  at  the  most  critical  moment 
of  the  struggle. 

"MARSHALL  BLACK.'" 


The  Assembly  Amendments  109 

days,  or,  in  lieu  of  that,  if  some  other  solon  of  the  same 
faith  as  regards  the  Primary  bill  can  only  contract  some 
minor  ailment,  there  will  be  more  joy  than  sorrow  among 
the  people  who  want  something  approaching  a  real  direct 
primary."  52 

Matters  were  brought  to  a  climax  when  the  per- 
formers through  Senator  Weed — who  was,  by  the  way, 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Morals,  which 
reported  adversely  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill — introduced 
a  resolution,  authorizing  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to  bring 
Senator  Black  to  Sacramento,  even  though  a  special 
engine  and  coach  be  chartered  for  the  purpose.53  The 


52  The    Star's    clever   editorial    article   is   worth    preserving.      It 
was   in   full   as   follows:      "There   are   times,    it  appears,   when   the 
illness  of  a  statesman  is  good  for  the  people.     We  do  not  desire  to 
wish  Senator  Stetson  any  bad  luck,   but  if  his  slight  indisposition 
should  continue  for  a  few  days,  or,  in  lieu  of  that,   if  some  other 
solon  of  the  same  faith  as  regards  the  Primary  bill,  can  only  contract 
some  minor  ailment,  there  will  be  more  joy  than  sorrow  among  the 
people  who  want  something  approaching  a  real  direct  primary. 

"As  explained  in  The  Star's  news  columns,  had  Senator  Stetson 
not  been  ill,  a  tie  vote  on  the  proposition  to  concur  with  the  As- 
sembly in  amending  the  primary  bill,  presumably  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Frank  Flint  and  generally  to  machine  advantage,  would 
have  occurred.  And  then — it's  unkind  to  say  such  things — any 
person  with  a  grain  of  sense  would  know  that  Mr.  'Performing' 
Porter,  our  honored  and  distinguished  Lieutenant-Governor,  would 
break  the  tie  by  casting  his  vote  for  the  machine. 

"The  evident  intention  of  Senators  who  stand  for  the  Wright 
bill  in  its  original  form,  which  is  a  start  toward  a  real  direct 
primary  (and  that  doesn't  include  Senator  Wright,  more's  the  pity) 
to  dodge  the  possibility  of  the  tie  vote  by  absenting  themselves 
without  leave  is  regrettable — regrettable  only  because  it  is  neces- 
sary. Their  action,  with  the  aim  of  serving  the  best  interests  of 
the  people,  is  highly  honorable  compared  with  the  tactics  of  the 
powers  that  be,  even  unto  the  Governor  himself,  who  have  been 
trying  every  means  to  club  legislators  into  line  to  stand  by  the 
'organization'  and  defeat  the  will  of  the  people. 

"It's  hard  to  be  very  sorry  just  now  over  Senator  Stetson's 
illness,  but  he  deserves  a  vote  of  thanks  for  contracting  that  cold. 
And  another  for  being  on  the  right  side." 

53  The   Weed   resolution    reads   as   follows:      "Resolved,    By   the 
Senate  of  the  State  of  California,  That  the  President  of  the  Senate 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  instruct  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to 
proceed   at  once   to   Palo   Alto  with   a  competent  physician,    to   be 
named  by  the  President  of  the   Senate,   for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 


i  io  The  Assembly  Amendments 

resolution  brought  forth  indignant  protest  from  the  anti- 
machine  Senators,  and  a  telegram  from  Senator  Black 
to  Warren  Porter,  denouncing  the  unwarranted  proceed- 
ings. 54  Nevertheless,  Doctor  Douglass  W.  Montgomery 
of  San  Francisco,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  four  reputable 
physicians,  Dr.  Howard  Black,  Dr.  H.  B.  Reynolds,  Dr. 
J.  C.  Spencer  and  Dr.  R.  L.  Wilbur,  had  certified  that 
Senator  Black's  physical  condition  did  not  permit  of  his 
being  removed  to  Sacramento,  went  to  Palo  Alto  with 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to  investigate  the  sick  Senator. 
Montgomery's  investigations  seem  to  have  been  confined 
to  the  outside  of  Senator  Black's  house.55  At  any  rate 
he  did  not  see  Senator  Black.  The  performance  was 
given  its  sordid  feature  by  Montgomery  charging  the 
Seriate  $400  for  his  services. 

The  Montgomery  incident  demonstrated  clearly  that 


taining  whether  it  is  safe  for  Senator  Black  to  proceed  at  once  to 
Sacramento,  to  attend  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  the  thirty-eighth 
session  of  the  California  Legislature,  and 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  That  in  the  event  that  such  examina- 
tion results  in  disclosing  a  state  of  health  wherein  it  will  be  safe 
for  Senator  Black  to  be  present,  then  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  shall 
bring  him  at  once  to  Sacramento  and,  if  necessary,  to  secure  an 
engine  and  coach  for  that  purpose." 

54  Black's  answering  telegram  was  in  full  as  follows:  "I  beg  to 
inform  you  (Lieutenant- Governor  Porter)  and  through  you  the 
Senate  of  California  that  I  regard  the  resolutions  adopted  last 
Saturday  in  reference  to  my  absence,  as  discourteous,  as  a  re- 
flection on  my  honor  and  integrity  and  as  proposing  an  infringe- 
ment on  my  privileges  and  rights  as  a  Senator  and  citizen.  I  have, 
therefore  declined  to  see  the  persons  sent  here  under  that  resolu- 
tion, and  shall  continue  to  decline  to  see  them  until  my  physicians 
inform  me  that  I  can  with  safety  return  to  Sacramento. 

"Ample  evidence  of  my  physical  condition  has  been  presented  to 
your  representatives  by  four  reputable  physicians,  and  these 
physicians  have  furnished  and  will  furnish  evidence  of  my  condi- 
tion from  time  to  time  as  requested  by  you  or  by  the  Senate. 

"MARSHALL  BLACK." 


of. 


Dr.  Montgomery's  $400  report  will  be  found  in  the  appendix. 


The  Assembly  Amendments  1 1 1 

the  machine  was  whipped.56  Senator  Wolfe  accordingly 
on  Monday,  March  22,  after  holding  the  Senate  in  dead- 
lock more  than  a  week,  moved  that  the  vote  whereby  the 
Senate  had  refused  to  concur  in  the  Assembly  amend- 
ment to  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  be  reconsidered.  This, 
the  Senate^as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  at  Senator  Wolfe's 
request,  did.  It  then  refused  to  concur  in  the  Assem- 
bly's objectionable  amendment.  For  the  second  time,  the 
Senate  went  on  record  against  the  machine's  advisory 
district-vote  plan  for  the  election  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators. For  the  second  time  the  anti-machine  element 
in  the  Senate,  in  its  efforts  to  secure  the  passage  of  an 
effective  direct  primary  measure,  had,  fighting  fair,  and 
in  the  open,  and  above  board  always,  defeated  the  ma- 
chine. The  machine  thereupon  met  the  anti-machine  ele- 
ment with  a  trick  that  completely  turned  the  tables,  a 
trick  by  which  the  anti-machine  forces  were  defeated, 
and  the  machine  element  placed  in  a  position  to  amend 
the  bill  as  it  might  see  fit. 

56  The  schemes  resorted  to  to  get  Black  back  to  Sacramento  are 
almost  beyond  belief.  It  was  even  intimated  to  him  that  his  bills 
would  be  held  up  if  he  did  not  return.  The  following  telegram 
scarcely  requires  comment: 

Sacramento   Cal   Mch   20-09 
Hon.   Marshall  Black, 

Palo   Alto,    Cal. 

Your  bill   to   issue   bonds   for  general   improvement   fund   before 
me.    I  would  like  to  have  you  here  to  explain  its  provisions  and  the 
necessity  for  it. 
12-50Pm  J.   N.   GILLETT. 


CHAPTER  XL 
MACHINE  AMENDS  DIRECT  PRIMARY  BILL.  57 

By  Trick  Prevents  Senate  From  Concurring  in  Amend- 
ments to  Correct  Clerical  and  Typographical  Errors, 
Thus  Creating  a  Situation  Which  Threw  the  Meas- 
ure Into  a  Committee  on  Free  Conference  With 
Power  to  Amend. 

It  is  a  very  good  rule  to  be  sure  that  your  rattlesnake 
is  dead  before  placing  yourself  in  a  position  to  be  bitten. 
The  reform  Senators  neglected  this  rule,  with  the  result 
that  after  they  had  the  machine  element  whipped  on  the 
direct  primary  issue,  they  placed  themselves  in  a  posi- 
tion where  the  "performers"  struck  at  them  viciously, 
and  snatched  victory  from  them. 

As  was  shown  in  a  previous  chapter,  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill,  after  it  had  originally  passed  the  Senate  in  the 
face  of  machine  opposition,  was  allowed  to  go  to  the 
Assembly  containing  several  serious  clerical  and  typo- 
graphical errors.  The  Assembly  corrected  these  errors 

57  The  plain  citizen  will  marvel  at  the  lengths  to  which  the 
machine  went  to  prevent  a  provision  being  incorporated  into  the 
Direct  Primary  bill  for  the  selection  by  State-wide  vote  of  United 
States  Senators.  The  plain  citizen  does  not,  however,  look  upon  a 
United  States  Senator  through  the  same  eyes  as  the  machine.  To 
the  plain  citizen  that  United  States  Senator  is  desirable  who  rep- 
resents policies  beneficial  to  his  country  and  his  State;  to  the  ma- 
chine that  United  States  Senator  is  desirable  who  will  in  effect 
turn  his  Federal  patronage  over  to  the  machine.  The  election  of 
United  States  Senators  by  State-wide  vote  would  take  their  ap- 
pointment out  of  machine  hands,  which  would  mean  loss  to  the 
machine  of  Federal  patronage.  For  this  reason  the  almost  unbe- 
lievable lengths  to  which  the  machine  went  to  prevent  the  provi- 
sion for  State-wide  vote  for  the  election  of  United  States  Senators 
being  incorporated  into  the  Direct  Primary  bill. 


Machine  Amends  Bill  113 

by  a  series  of  ten  amendments.  It  was  necessary  for 
the  Senate  to  concur  in  these  amendments  to  get  the 
bill  into  proper  form.  The  amendments  added  in  the 
Assembly  to  which  the  anti-machine  Senators  took  ex- 
ception, were  seven  in  number  and  dealt  principally 
with  the  changing  of  the  method  of  electing  United 
States  Senators,  from  the  plan  of  State-wide  vote,  to 
that  of  district,  advisory  vote.  The  seven  were  known 
as  the  "vicious  amendments" ;  the  ten  correcting  the  typo- 
graphical errors  were  called  the  "necessary  amendments." 
There  is  no  good  reason  why  the  ten  necessary  amend- 
ments should  not  have  been  made  before  the  bill  was 
first  sent  to  the  Assembly.  But  they  were  not,  and  the 
errors  which  were  thus  left  in  the  bill  served  the  ma- 
chine most  advantageously  when  the  final  fight  came. 
After  Wolfe  had  given  up  hope  of  compelling  the  reform 
Senators  to  concur  in  the  vicious  amendments  read  into 
the  bill  in  the  Assembly,  his  play  was  to  bring  about  a 
situation  by  which  the  bill  would  be  thrown  into  a  Com- 
mittee on  Free  Conference.  The  committee  would  be 
appointed  by  President  Porter  of  the  Senate,  and  by 
Speaker  Stanton  of  the  Assembly.  Such  a  committee 
would,  of  course,  be  in  sympathy  with  machine  policies, 
and  could  be  counted  upon  to  amend  the  bill  to  the 
machine's  liking.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the  machine 
leaders  in  the  Senate  and  the  machine  leaders  in  the 
Assembly  acted  in  conjunction  in  the  proceedings  which 
followed  Senator  Wolfe's  action  in  abandoning  his  efforts 
to  force  the  anti-machine  Senators  to  support  the  so- 
called  vicious  Assembly  amendments. 

Wolfe's  first  move  was  to  ask  as  a  matter  of  courtesy 


ii4  Machine  Amends  Bill 

that  the  Senate  adopt  his  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
by  which  it  had  the  week  before  refused  to  concur  in 
the  Assembly  amendment.  This  request  the  reform 
element  granted,  purely  as  a  matter  of  courtesy.  Wolfe 
then  edged  up  a  step  nearer. 

No  sooner  had  he  received  the  courtesy  of  reconsid- 
eration than  both  he  and  Leavitt  were  to  the  fore  with 
a  suggestion  that  the  Senate  should  refuse  to  concur  in 
all  the  amendments  and  let  them  be  threshed  out  in  the 
Assembly.  The  purpose  of  the  two  machine  leaders  was 
apparent. 

Had  the  Senate  concurred  in  the  ten  Assembly 
amendments  made  necessary  to  correct  typographical  er- 
rors, and  refused  to  concur  in  the  seven  objectionable 
amendments,  all  that  would  have  been  necessary  would 
have  been  for  the  Assembly  to  recede  from  its  objection- 
able amendments.  But  if  Wolfe  could  so  engineer  mat- 
ters that  the  Senate  would  refuse  to  concur  in  all  the 
amendments,  then  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  Assembly 
to  recede  from  all  its  amendments,  including  those  in- 
tended to  correct  typographical  errors,  or  send  the  bill 
to  a  conference  committee,  to  be  selected  by  Stanton  and 
Porter.  From  a  Committee  on  Conference  to  a  Com- 
mittee on  Free  Conference,  also  to  be  appointed  by  Stan- 
ton  and  Porter,  and  with  full  power  to  amend  the  bill 
to  its  liking,  was  but  a  step.  The  Committee  on  Free 
Conference  was  Wolfe's  aim.  He  eventually  got  it. 

Boynton  and  Walker  were  quick  to  see  the  trend 
of  Wolfe's  requests,  however,  and  Walker  moved  to 
vote  on  the  seven  vicious  amendments  on  one  roll  call,  and 
on  the  ten  correcting  the  typographical  and  clerical  errors 
on  a  second. 


Machine  Amends  Bill  115 

As  a  substitute  Wolfe  moved  that  the  seventeen 
amendments  be  passed  upon  under  one  roll  call. 

At  first  Senators  Cutten  and  Stetson  apparently  could 
not  see  the  trend  of  Wolfe's  scheming.  In  the  debate 
that  ensued  Wolfe  pretended  indignation  that  his  mo- 
tives were  being  questioned. 

There  was  very  good  reason  for  questioning  Senator 
Wolfe's  motives,  but  Cutten  and  Stetson  and  even  Walker 
assured  Wolfe  that  no  reflection  upon  him  was  intended. 
What  these  men  should  have  done  was  to  have  denounced 
Wolfe  right  there  as  a  trickster  and  made  no  bones 
about  it.  But  on  the  absurd  assumption  that  a  member 
of  the  State  Senate  is  necessarily  a  gentleman,  the  much 
deserved  denunciation  did  not  come. 

However,  Wolfe's  motion  did  not  prevail  and  the 
amendments  were  taken  up  one  by  one.  Six  of  the  seven 
vicious  amendments  were  rejected,  the  first  of  the  six 
by  a  vote  of  19  to  20. 

This  brought  the  Senate  to  the  amendments  intended 
to  correct  typographical  and  clerical  errors.  And  here 
the  vote  switched.  The  reformers  had  up  to  this  time 
been  voting  to  reject  the  amendments,  because  the  amend- 
ments were  objectionable,  while  the  programmers  in  the 
first  instance  voted  for  concurrence.  But  when  it  came 
to  amendments  intended  to  correct  typographical  and 
clerical  errors  only,  Wolfe  and  his  following,  with  the 
exception  of  Burnett,  who  refused  to  stand  for  any  such 
dastardly  piece  of  work,  voted  to  refuse  to  concur  in 
the  amendments,  while  the  anti-machine  Senators,  of 
course,  voted  to  concur  in  them. 

Burnett,  voting  with  the  anti-machine  element,  gave 


u6  Machine  Amends  Bill 

/them  twenty  votes,  leaving  Wolfe  and  his  following  only 
nineteen.  But  twenty-one  votes  were  necessary  for  con- 
currence. The  machine,  while  it  could  not  force  the  Sen- 
ate to  concur  in  the  vicious  amendments,  could  prevent 
the  Senate's  concurrence  in  the  amendments  to  correct 
the  clerical  and  typographical  errors.  The  bill  was  ac- 
cordingly sent  back  to  the  Assembly  with  the  typograph- 
ical and  clerical  amendments  still  in  dispute. 

Even  before  the  bill  had  reached  the  Assembly,  Sen- 
ator Frank  Leavitt  and  George  Van  Smith  of  The  Call 
were  on  the  floor  of  that  body,  fighting  to  prevent  the 
Assembly  receding  from  its  amendments. 

When  the  Assembly  grasped  the  fact  that  the  Senate 
had  refused  to  concur  in  the  amendments  necessary  for 
correction  of  typographical  errors,  those  who  were  work- 
ing for  an  effective  Direct  Primary  bill  were  thrown  into 
the  greatest  confusion.  Speaker  Stanton's  rulings  which 
followed,  were  not  calculated  to  relieve  the  situation. 
Speaking  from  the  desk,  Stanton  said: 

"If  you  recede  from  some  of  these  amendments  and 
not  from  others  where  will  your  bill  be  ?  It  will  be  dead. 
The  only  thing  that  you  can  do  to  save  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill  now  is  to  recede  from  all  the  amendments  and 
let  the  typographical  errors  remain  in  the  bill,  or  refuse 
to  recede  from  any  of  the  amendments  and  let  the  bill 
go  into  conference.  If  you  recede  from  some  of  the 
amendments  and  not  from  others,  your  bill  is  dead.  We 
cannot  send  this  bill  back  to  the  Senate  saying  that  the 
Assembly  has  receded  from  some  of  the  amendments 
and  not  from  others." 

Assemblymen  Preston,  Bohnett  and  others  who  were 


Machine  Amends  Bill  117 

standing  for  an  effective  measure,  were  amazed  at  the 
position  which  Stanton  had  taken. 

"I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me,"  said  Preston,  "see  why 
we  cannot  recede  from  part  of  the  amendments  and  refuse 
to  recede  from  the  others.  Some  of  these  amendments 
are  really  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  bill.  Others 
should  be  rejected.  Give  me  fifteen  minutes  and  I  will 
guarantee  to  dig  up  authorities  which  will  show  us  the 
course  to  be  pursued." 

Assemblyman  Bohnett  confessed  himself  unable  to 
understand  why  the  Assembly  could  not  send  part  of  the 
amendments  to  conference  and  not  the  others. 

By  this  time  matters  had  got  so  warm  in  the  Assem- 
bly that  Senator  Leavitt  found  it  necessary  to  lend  dig- 
nity to  the  occasion  by  taking  his  seat  at  the  side  of 
Speaker  Stanton,  whom  he  engaged  in  conversation.  The 
conference  was,  of  course,  carried  on  in  whispers. 

Assemblymen  Young,  Bohnett  and  others,  finding  that 
it  would  be  impossible  under  the  assumption  of  the  Speak- 
er to  refuse  to  recede  from  part  of  the  amendments  while 
receding  from  the  others,  advised  the  good  government 
members  to  refuse  to  recede  from  all  the  amendments,  and 
pass  the  bill,  typographical  errors  and  all. 

It  was  demanded  of  Bohnett  if  this  would  not  lead  to 
the  practical  defeat  of  the  measure.  Bohnett  insisted  that 
it  would  not ;  that  the  typographical  errors,  while  deplor- 
able, did  not  materially  affect  the  bill. 

However,  many  of  the  better  element  of  the  Assembly 


n8  Machine  Amends  Bill 

did  not  dare  to  take  the  risk,  and  the  motion  to  recede 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  29  to  42. 58 

Assemblymen  who  unquestionably  stood  for  a  good 
bill  voted  against  receding.  Had  the  vicious  amendments 
alone  been  under  consideration,  they  would  have  voted 
to  recede.  Among  these  were  such  men  as  Assemblyman 
Drew  of  Fresno.  The  Assembly,  having  refused  to  re- 
cede from  its  amendments,  the  bill  went  to  a  Committee 
on  Conference,  appointed  by  Speaker  Stanton  and  Presi- 
dent Porter.  The  machine  had  gained  its  point. 

The  Conference  Committee  consisted  of  Senators 
Wolfe,  Leavitt  and  Wright,  and  Assemblymen  Leeds, 
Johnson  of  Sacramento,  and  Hewitt.  Of  the  Commit- 
tee, Hewitt 59  was  the  only  member  who  favored  a  State- 
wide vote  for  United  States  Senator,  and  opposed  the 
advisory  district  vote.  The  committee  had  scarcely  been 
missed  from  Senate  and  Assembly  chambers  before  it 
was  back  to  report  that  no  agreement  could  be  reached. 

The  same  members  were  thereupon  appointed  as  a 
Committee  on  Free  Conference,  which  gave  them  power 
to  amend  the  bill.  As  a  Committee  on  Free  Conference 


58  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

Ayes:  Messrs.  Bohnett,  Callan,  Cattell,  Cogswell,  Collum,  Cos- 
tar,  Flavelle,  Gerdes,  Gibbons,  Gillis,  Hinkle,  Holmquist,  Irwin, 
Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Kehoe.  Maher,  Mendenhall,  Odom,  Otis, 
Polsley,  Preston,  Sackett,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Whitney,  Wilson, 
Wyllie  and  Young— 29. 

Noes:  Messrs.  Barndollar,  Beardslee,  Beatty,  Beban,  Black, 
Butler,  Coghlan,  Collier,  Cronin,  Cullen,  Drew,  Feeley,  Fleisher, 
Flint,  Greer,  Griffiths,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans,  Hawk,  Hewitt, 
Johnson  of  Sacramento,  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Leeds,  Macauley, 
McClelland,  McManus,  Melrose,  Moore,  Mott,  Nelson,  Perine,  Pugh, 
Pulcifer,  Rech,  Rutherford,  Schmitt,  Silver,  Stanton,  Transue, 
Wagner,  Wheelan — 42. 

59  Hewitt  voted  against  the  amendments  the  day  they  were  read 
into    the   bill. 


Machine  Amends  Bill  119 

they  recommended  the  advisory  district  vote  plan  for  the 
nomination  of  United  States  Senators. 60 

Senator  Wolfe,  having  got  the  bill  in  shape  to  his  lik- 
ing, with  a  suave  smirk  upon  his  face,  stated  that  he  trust- 
ed that  all  the  Senators  present  would  vote  for  the 
measure. 

"Not  on  your  life,"  came  Caminetti's  protest. 

And  Caminetti  did  not  vote  for  the  Free  Conference 
Committee's  report. 

But  in  spite  of  Caminetti's  protest,  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  adopted  the  Conference  Committee's  report. 
They  had  to  do  so  or  defeat  the  bill  entirely.  Caminetti 
was  the  only  Senator  who  voted  against  it.  The  machine, 
after  a  fight  of  nearly  two  months,  in  which  it  was  twice 
defeated  in  the  Senate,  and  escaped  defeat  in  the  Assembly 
by  only  one  vote,  that  of  Pulcifer,  had  carried  its  point, 
had  succeeded  in  denying  the  people  of  California  the 
privilege  of  casting  a  practical,  State-wide  vote  for  United 
States  Senators. 


60  The  Free  Conference  Committee's  amendment  was  in  full 
as  follows: 

"By  nominating  petitions  signed  and  filed  as  provided  by  exist- 
ing laws  party  candidates  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator 
shall  have  their  names  placed  on  the  official  primary  election  ballots 
of  their  respective  parties,  in  the  manner  herein  provided  for  State 
offices,  PROVIDED,  HOWEVER,  THAT  THE  VOTE  FOR  CANDI- 
DATES FOR  UNITED  STATES  SENATORS  SHALL  BE  AN 
ADVISORY  VOTE  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  ASCERTAINING  THE 
SENTIMENT  OF  THE  VOTERS  IN  THE  RESPECTIVE  SENA- 
TORIAL AND  ASSEMBLY  DISTRICTS  IN  THE  RESPECTIVE 
PARTIES,  and  the  Senatorial  and  Assembly  nominees  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  vote  either  for  the  choice  of  such  district  expressed  at 
said  primary  election,  or  for  the  candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
who  shall  have  received  the  endorsement  of  such  primary  election 
in  the  greater  number  of  districts  electing  members  of  his  party  to 
the  Legislature." 


120  Machine  Amends  Bill 

What  the  anti-machine  Senators  61  thought  of  the  out- 
come is  best  expressed  in  the  little  speech  which  Senator 
Stetson  made  his  fellow-Senators  in  explaining  his  vote 
to  accept  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Free  Confer- 
ence. 

"Before  voting  on  this  matter,"  said  Stetson,  "lest  any 
one  in  the  future  may  think  that  I  have  been  passed  some- 
thing and  didn't  know  it,  I  wish  to  explain  my  vote,  and 
wish  to  say  that  this  permission  accorded  a  candidate  to 
go  on  record  to  support  that  candidate  for  United  States 
Senate,  who  shall  have  the  endorsement  of  the  greatest 
number  of  districts,  comes  from  nobody  and  goes  to  no- 
body. It  means  nothing — mere  words — idle  words.  The 
only  way  in  which  a  candidate  could  have  been  pledged 
would  have  been  to  provide  a  pledge  or  instructions  to  the 
Legislature.  The  words  'shall  be  permitted'  mean  noth- 
ing and  get  nowhere.  I  shall  vote  for  this  report,  not  be- 
cause I  want  to,  but  because  I  have  to  if  we  are  at  this 
session  to  have  any  Direct  Primary  law  at  all." 


61  Stetson  was  not  the  only  Senator  to  protest.  Senators  Camp- 
bell, Holphan  and  Miller  sent  to  the  Secretary's  desk  the  following 
explanation  of  their  votes:  "We  voted  for  the  Direct  Primary  bill 
because  it  seems  to  be  the  best  law  that  can  be  obtained  under 
existing  political  conditions.  We  are  opposed  to  many  of  the  fea- 
tures of  this  bill,  and  believe  that  the  people  at  the  first  oppor- 
tunity will  instruct  their  representatives  in  the  Legislature  to 
radically  amend  the  same  in  many  particulars,  notably  in  regard 
to  the  election  of  United  States  Senators,  and  the  provisions  that 
prevent  the  endorsement  of  a  candidate  by  a  political  party  or 
organization  other  than  the  one  that  first  nominated  such  candi- 
date." 

A  second  protest,  signed  by  Senators  Curtin,  Cartwright  and 
Sanford,  was  also  printed  in  the  Journal.  It  reads  as  follows: 
"We  voted  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Free  Con- 
ference on  Senate  Bill  No.  3,  not  because  we  believe  it  to  be  what 
is  desired  by  the  people  of  this  State,  but  because  we  believe  it  to 
be  the  only  bill  that  can  be  adopted  at  this  late  hour,  as  the  Legis- 
lature is  about  to  adjourn." 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  RAILROAD  REGULATION  ISSUE. 

Recent  Increase  in  Freight  Tariff  Had  Brought  About 
a  Condition  Which  Required  Action — Senate  Divided 
Into  Supporters  of  an  Effective  and  Supporters  of  an 
Ineffective  Measure — Manipulation  by  Which  Meas- 
ures Were  Placed  in  Hands  of  a  Machine-Controlled 
Committee. 

Some  one  has  very  well  said  that  the  real  test  of  a 
Legislature  is  its  action  on  railroad  measures.  The 
Legislature  of  1909,  if  estimated  by  this  standard  would 
not  appear  to  advantage.  But  to  condemn  the  Legis- 
lature of  1909  for  its  failure  to  give  the  State  an  effect- 
ive railroad  regulation  law,  is  to  condemn  every  Legis- 
lature that  has  sat  in  California  since  the  present  State 
Constitution  went  into  effect  thirty  years  ago.  The 
Constitution  empowers  the  Legislature  to  pass  effective 
railroad  regulation  measures,  but  up  to  the  session  of 
1909,  the  machine,  or  system,  or  organization — one  name 
is  as  fragrant  as  another — had  prevented  the  passage,  if 
we  exclude  the  ineffective  Act  of  1880,  of  any  railroad 
regulation  law  at  all.  The  machine  has  ever  moved 
against  the  interests  of  the  people  and  in  the  interest  of 
its  dominating  factor  and  at  the  same  time  its  chief 
beneficiary,  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company.  It 
has  so  manipulated  the  nomination  and  election  of  Rail- 
road Commissioners  as  to  keep  in  that  office  men  utterly 
dominated  by  railroad  influences. 


122  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

With  weak  and  corrupt  men  as  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, and  machine-dominated  Legislatures  which  have 
neglected  to  pass  laws  which  would  have  made  the  Com- 
mission effective,  or  even  provide  funds  for  the  Com- 
mission to  carry  on  its  work,  even  had  the  Commission- 
ers been  so  inclined,  California  has  been  left  help- 
less to  oppose  any  extortion  which  the  railroad  might 
see  fit  to  exact.  The  system  of  charging  all  that  the 
traffic  will  bear  has  governed  utterly.  For  this  the 
Southern  Pacific  Company  can  thank,  and  the  People  of 
California  condemn,  the  machine. 

The  cost  to  the  people  has  been  enormous.  It  was 
pretty  conclusively  shown  at  the  Legislative  investiga- 
tion into  the  cause  of  recent  advance  of  freight  rates, 
that  upwards  of  $10,000,000  62  a  year  has  in  this  one  in- 
stance been  added  to  the  freight  charges  exacted  from 
the  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast.  The  added  burden  falls 
upon  the  Pacific  Coast  manufacturer,  merchant,  farmer, 

62  The  testimony  was  that  of  George  J.  Bradley,  traffic  manager 
of  the  Merchants'  and  Manufacturers'  Traffic  Association  of  Sac- 
ramento. It  was  as  follows: 

It  is  estimated  on  conservative  figures  that  the  increase  in 
eastbound  California  products,  or  Pacific  Coast  products,  I  should 
correctly  say,  which  is  composed  of  canned  fruits,  canned  vege- 
tables and  canned  salmon,  of  which  there  are  several  million 
cases,  go  from  the  North  Pacific  coast  through  either  San  Fran- 
cisco or  through  the  North  Pacific  coast,  the  minimum  being  forty 
thousand  pounds  to  the  car,  and  the  increase  being  ten  cents  per 
hundred  pounds,  means  forty  dollars  a  car  increase.  Now,  taking 
the  number  of  cars  of  all  those  products  that  are  shipped,  it 
amounted  to  about — and  leather  and  other  products — it  amounted 
to  about  four  million  dollars  eastbound.  Now,  when  the  question 
of  westbound  comes  out,  of  course,  it  is  practically  impossible 
for  any  man  to  say  just  exactly  what  that  increase  will  mean 
in  dollars  and  cents,  and  the  only  way,  therefore,  to  arrive  at  it 
is  to  take  the  percentage  of  proportion  now  in  their  westbound 
tariff,  which  is  composed  of  about  between  eight  hundred  and  a 
thousand  items.  They  have  raised  the  rates  from  10  to  25  cents 
on  over  two  hundred  articles,  all  of  which  move  in  quantities;  in 
other  words,  the  process  by  which  the  tariff  has  been  amended 
has  been  that  in  every  instance  where  there  was  a  commodity 
moving  in  quantities  the  rate  has  been  advanced;  wherever  there 
was  no  movement  and  they  wished  to  encourage  a  movement,  they 


Railroad  Regulation  Issue  123 

fruit  grower,  consumer.  All  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest  help  pay  the  tribute.  Thirty  years  is  a  long 
period,  and  the  arm  of  the  railroad  tribute-taker  far- 
reaching.  The  vast  sums  which,  unrestricted,  the  South- 
ern Pacific  has  been  able  to  exact  run  into  enormous 
totals.  From  a  dollar  and  cent  standpoint,  it  has  paid 
the  Southern  Pacific  Company  to  control  the  machine. 

But  the  railroad's  absolute  domination  of  the  State 
could  not  continue  forever  without  protest  that  would 
eventually  force  a  hearing.  This  protest  came  toward 
the  close  of  1908.  The  increase  in  freight  rates  made 
just  before  the  Legislature  of  1909  convened  emphasized 
the  necessity  for  the  enactment  of  a  law  that  should 
galvanize  the  Railroad  Commission  into  activity;  en- 
sure the  enforcement  of  constitutional  provisions  for  the 
protection  of  the  public  against  dominant  transportation 
companies ;  in  a  word,  provide  effective  railroad  regula- 
tion. 

reduced  the  rate.  Now,  you  take  the  five  transcontinental  lines 
that  operate  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  namely,  the  Northern  Pacific  and 
the  Great  Northern  on  the  north  and  the  Canadian  Pacific;  the 
Southern  Pacific  and  the  Santa  Fe  and  the  San  Pedro  and  Los  An- 
geles on  the  south,  give  you  six  trunk  lines  operating  on  the  Pacific 
Coast.  If  you  will  take  their  gross  earnings,  which  amount  to 
over  four  hundred  millions,  segregate  that  by  allowing  fifty  per 
cent  of  that  to  passenger  service,  which  is  a  very  conservative  esti- 
mate, because  the  passenger  service  does  not  amount  to  that, 
leaves  two  hundred  million  dollars  of  gross  freight  earnings. 
Take  five  per  cent  of  that  for  terminal  business,  and  business  is 
based  on  terminal  rates  from  the  coast,  plus  the  local  back,  be- 
cause the  rate,  of  course,  is  felt  everywhere,  the  rates  to  the 
interior  points  are  made  on  the  terminal  rate,  plus  the  local  back. 
Take  five  per  cent  of  that  and  their  increase  in  every  instance 
has  been  10  per  cent,  and  in  some  cases  16  2-3  and  20  per  cent; 
but  take  a  very  liberal  conservative  estimate  and  put  it  at  five 
per  cent  and  you  have  ten  million  dollars;  now,  split  that  in 
two  and  take  two  and  a  half  per  cent  of  it  and  you  have  got  five 
millions  of  dollars.  Now,  that  and  your  four  million  dollars  on  east- 
bound  freight  and  you  have  nine  millions  of  dollars  increase  in 
freight  rates,  and  I  believe  that  that  is  a  conservative  estimate. 
I  don't  see  how  you  could  get  at  it  any  closer,  because  every 
man,  It  doesn't  make  any  difference  where  he  is,  every  man  that 
buys  pays  that  ten  to  twenty  per  cent  increase. 


124  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

Governor  Gillett  in  his  biennial  message  to  the  Legis- 
lature, and  Attorney  General  Webb  in  his  biennial  report 
gave  expression  to  this  aroused  public  sentiment. 

General  Webb,  after  reviewing  railroad  conditions  in 
California,  on  page  13  of  his  report  says:  '"It  is  thus 
apparent  that  the  shippers  of  the  State  are  practically 
helpless." 

"I  believe,"  continues  the  Attorney  General,  "that  this 
review  of  the  situation  will  show  the  imperative  neces- 
sity of  prompt  legislation  on  this  subject,  and  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  State,  the  Legislature  has  ample 
authority  to  enact  the  required  legislation." 

Governor  Gillett,  in  his  biennial  message,  takes  prac- 
tically the  same  stand  as  does  Attorney  General  Webb. 

"Our  State,"  says  the  Governor  on  page  12  of  his 
message,  "has  not  kept  pace  with  the  majority  of  the 
States  of  the  Union  in  the  enactment  of  laws  regulating 
railroads  in  their  business  as  common  carriers." 

"I  can  virtually  promise  you,"  said  General  Webb  at 
a  meeting  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Corporations, 
held  on  the  evening  of  January  25th,  "that  in  the  event 
of  this  (the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill)  becoming 
a  law,  and  the  Railroad  Commission  refusing  or  neglect- 
ing to  act  under  its  provisions,  the  Governor  will  call 
the  Legislature  together  in  extraordinary  session  for 
their  impeachment."63 

There  was  no  question  of  the  aroused  public  senti- 
ment in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  railroad  regulation 

63  Senator  Caminetti  on  February  12  introduced  a  concurrent 
resolution  calling  for  the  removal  of  the  present  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  from  office.  The  Committee  on  Corporations  re- 
ported adversely,  and  on  March  15th  the  resolution  was  finally 
rejected. 


Railroad  Regulation  Issue  125 

measure.  Even  before  the  Legislature  convened  it  be- 
came evident  that  some  sort  of  a  measure  would  have 
to  be  passed;  even  the  railroad  lobby  saw  that.  The 
Legislature  accordingly  divided  on  the  question.  As  the 
fight  was  carried  on  in  the  Senate — the  Assembly  in  the 
rush  of  the  closing  hours  of  the  session  merely  putting 
its  "O.  K."  on  what  the  Senate  had  done — the  division 
in  the  Senate  alone  will  be  considered.  The  division 
in  that  body  was : 

(1)  The   minority,   made   up   of   the   out   and   out 
machine  Republicans  and  Democrats,  who  were  prepared 
to  pass  a  measure  which  under  the  name  railroad  regula- 
tion would  leave  the  railroads  practically  independent  of 
effective  State  supervision. 

(2)  The  majority,  which  stood  for  the  passage  of 
an  effective  law. 

The  minority  had  the  best  captains  in  the  Senate  and 
was  backed  by  the  machine  lobby  made  up  principally  of 
Southern  Pacific  attorneys. 

The  majority  was  poor  in  generals.  But  it  had  the 
backing  of  the  shippers  of  the  State,  who  sent  able  coun- 
sel to  Sacramento  to  present  the  shippers'  side. 

And  in  the  end  the  machine  minority  wore  out  and 
defeated  the  majority.  A  comparatively  effective  rail- 
road regulation  bill  was  rejected  and  an  ineffective 
measure  passed. 

Three  railroad  regulation  measures  were  introduced 
in  the  Senate,  their  authors  being  Campbell,  Stetson,  and 
Wright. 

The  Campbell  bill  had  much  to  commend  it,  but  was 
rejected  without  much  consideration  by  either  side. 


126  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

Campbell  was  not  in  the  program  of  either  railroad  or 
shippers.  But  before  the  session  was  over  Campbell 
had  made  himself  felt.  He  had,  too,  introduced  a  Con- 
stitutional Amendment  for  the  correction  of  railroad 
abuses,  which  was  to  figure  later  on,  but  his  bill  was 
scarcely  considered.  The  attorney  for  the  shippers,  in 
speaking  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Corporations, 
confessed  that  he  had  not  read  the  Campbell  bill. 

The  attorney  for  the  Southern  Pacific  Company, 
however,  attempted  to  split  the  anti-machine  forces  by 
praising  the  Campbell  bill,  and  setting  the  anti-machine 
Senators  to  disputing  over  the  relative  merits  of  the 
Campbell  and  Stetson  bills.  But  nothing  came  of  this 
graceful  little  coup.  Campbell  and  his  followers  were 
too  sensible  to  l)e  caught  by  any  such  trickery.  They 
gave  their  loyal  support  to  the  Stetson  bill,  and  the  Camp- 
bell bill  was  allowed  to  die  in  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. This  narrowed  the  fight  down  to  the  Stetson  bill 
and  the  Wright  bill. 

The  Stetson  bill  had  been  prepared  in  the  office  of 
Attorney  General  Webb,  and  at  the  instigation  of  Gov- 
ernor Gillett.  As  originally  introduced  it  contained  cer- 
tain defects,  which  were  afterwards  corrected,  but  such 
Senators  as  Cutten,  Caminetti,  Black,  Campbell,  Miller, 
Cartwright,  Bell  and  Thompson,  admitted  that  the  meas- 
ure could  be  made  the  basis  of  as  effective  a  law  as 
could  be  prepared  under  the  present  constitutional  pro- 
visions for  the  regulation  of  transportation  companies. 

The  original  measure  was  particularly  weak  in  the 
section  providing  for  demurrage  charges.  This  was 
finally  corrected  by  the  passage  of  a  separate  reciprocal 


Railroad  Regulation  Issue  127 

demurrage  bill,  which  had  been  introduced  by  Miller. 
Another  weakness  in  the  Stetson  bill  as  originally  intro- 
duced was  that  the  Railroad  Commission  was  made  a 
sort  of  barrier  between  the  Courts  and  those  who  had 
grievances  against  the  transportation  companies.  This 
objection  was  corrected  by  amendments. 

Numerous  other  amendments  adopted  from  time  to 
time  made  the  Stetson  bill  probably  as  effective  as  a 
California  railroad  regulation  law  can  be  made,  under 
the  Constitutional  provision  which  places  extraordinary 
powers  in  the  hands  of  the  State  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners. 

Just  where  the  Wright  bill  originated  nobody  seems 
to  know  for  certainty.  But  Senator  Wright  introduced 
it.  Senator  Wright  was  well  selected  for  the  job.  For 
two  years  he  had  been  groomed  as  the  reformer  who 
would  introduce  the  State-saving  Direct  Primary  Bill. 
So  a  railroad  regulation  measure  introduced  by  Senator 
Wright  might  at  least  be  calculated  to  bear  the  stamp 
of  respectability. 

Like  the  Stetson  bill,  the  Wright  bill  was  based  on 
the  constitutional  provisions  which  make  the  State  Board 
of  Railroad  Commissioners  the  center  of  railroad  regu- 
lation in  California.  And  here  the  parallel  ends. 

Comparison  of  the  two  measures  is  not  at  all  to  the 
advantage  of  the  Wright  bill. 

The  Stetson  bill  provided  fine  and  imprisonment  as 
penalty  for  infringement  of  its  provisions;  the  Wright 
bill  provided  fine  only. 

The  Stetson  bill  had  a  definite  anti-pass  provision ; 
the  Wright  bill  as  originally  introduced  had  no  such 
provision. 


ia8  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

The  Stetson  bill  authorized  not  only  the  Attorney- 
General,  but  the  District  Attorney  of  any  county  of  the 
State  to  proceed  to  enforce  its  provisions ;  the  Wright 
bill  granted  the  Attorney-General  alone  such  authority. 

The  Stetson  bill  required  the  Railroad  Commissioners 
to  meet  at  least  once  in  every  two  weeks ;  the  Wright 
bill  provided  that  such  meetings  should  be  held  monthly. 

The  Stetson  bill  gave  the  Railroad  Commissioners 
authority  to  make  physical  valuation  of  railroad  proper- 
ties; the  Wright  bill  contained  no  such  provision. 

The  Stetson  bill  recognized  all  discriminations  to  be 
unjust;  the  Wright  bill  provided  that  no  interference 
should  be  instituted  unless  the  discriminations  complained 
of  were  shown  to  be  unjust. 

And  finally,  the  Stetson  bill  provided  that  the  State 
Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  should  have  power 
to  fix  absolute  rates,  thus  insuring  stability  of  rate  sched- 
ules, while  the  Wright  bill  provided  that  the  Commis- 
sioners should  fix  maximum  rates  only,  thus  permitting 
the  famous  "fluidity"  of  schedules  advocated  by  machine 
lobby  and  Southern  Pacific  attorneys. 

The  contest  between  the  supporters  of  the  Wright  and 
the  supporters  of  the  Stetson  bill,  finally  narrowed  down 
to  the  question  of  providing  for  absolute  or  maximum 
rates. 

The  provision  for  the  maximum  rate  in  Senator 
Wright's  bill,  authorized  the  railroad  regulating  Com- 
mission to  fix  the  highest  charge  which  a  railroad  may 
exact  from  a  shipper.  This  is  called  the  maximum  rate. 
The  transportation  company  is  authorized  to  lower  the 
rate  at  will,  but  it  cannot  charge  a  rate  beyond  the  maxi- 


Railroad  Regulation  Issue  129 

mum  as  fixed  by  the  Commission.  This  leaves  the  rail- 
roads to  fix  a  sliding  schedule  of  rates,  so  long  as  they 
do  not  exceed  the  maximum.  It  gives  the  railroads  the 
advantage  of  that  "fluidity"  of  schedules,  which  railroad 
attorneys  insist  is  necessary  for  railroad  prosperity. 

The  maximum  rate  is  provided  in  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Act,  but  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commissioners, 
finding  it  impracticable,  have  for  years  been  clamoring 
for  Congress  to  authorize  the  fixing  of  absolute  rates. 
The  cry  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has 
been  taken  up  by  the  shipping  interests,  and  from  one 
end  of  the  country  to  the  other  there  is  growing  de- 
mand that  authority  be  placed  somewhere  to  make  rail- 
road rates,  when  fixed  by  a  regulating  Commission,  ab- 
solute. 

The  absolute  rate,  or  the  fixed  rate  as  it  is  better 
called,  which  was  provided  in  the  Stetson  bill,  can  nei- 
ther be  lowered  nor  raised  by  the  railroads.  Once  fixed 
by  the  regulating  Commission,  it  must  remain  until  the 
Commission  grants  permission  for  its  change.  The  rail- 
roads cannot  lower  it  any  more  than  they  can  raise  it. 

The  advantages  of  the  absolute  rate  are  many.  In 
the  first  place,  where  the  absolute  rate  is  established,  there 
can  be  no  discrimination,  because  the  rate  is  known,  it 
can  neither  be  raised  nor  lowered,  and  the  railroads  have 
no  opportunity  to  favor  one  shipper  at  the  expense  of 
another. 

In  the  second  place,  the  shipper  is  guaranteed  a 
stability  of  rate  schedules  which  is  deemed  necessary 
for  settled  business  conditions.  The  merchant,  for  ex- 
ample, includes  transportation  charges  in  the  cost  price 


130  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

of  the  goods  in  which  he  deals.  But  if  the  transporta- 
tion charges  on  the  same  class  of  goods  are  subject  to 
frequent  change,  the  merchant  can  never  tell  when  his 
competitor  is  to  be  given  the  advantage  of  a  sudden 
lowering  in  freight  rates.  This  uncertainty  unsettles 
business.  The  merchant  holds  that  transportation  rates 
should  be  just  as  stable  as  tariff  rates.  On  this  account, 
the  merchant  advocates  fixed  rates  and  stability  of  sched- 
ules as  against  maximum  rates  and  constantly  shifting 
schedules. 

The  supporters  of  the  Stetson  bill,  then,  backed  the 
shipping  and  merchant  classes ;  while  the  supporters  of 
the  Wright  bill  backed  the  contentions  of  the  transpor- 
tation companies. 

The  Campbell  and  the  Stetson  bills  had  been  originally 
referred  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  while  the 
Wright  bill  had  been  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Corporations.  For  the  first  few  weeks  of  the  session, 
no  particular  note  had  been  taken  of  the  Wright  bill, 
attention  being  centered  on  the  amendment  of  the  Stet- 
son bill. 

Things  were  going  swimmingly  with  the  Stetson  bill, 
when  the  machine  lobby  awoke  to  the  fact  that  something 
was  wrong  in  the  Senate.  There  was  at  least  some 
indication  that  the  Senate  would  pass  an  effective  rail- 
road regulation  measure. 

And  then,  before  the  advocates  of  the  Stetson  measure 
could  tell  exactly  what  was  happening,  the  railroad  regu- 
lation measures  were  taken  from  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on 
Corporations. 


Railroad  Regulation  Issue  131 

A  glance  at  the  personnel  of  the  two  Committees  at 
least  suggests  why  this  was  done. 

The  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  were  Wil- 
lis, Wolfe,  Wright,  McCartney,  Savage,  Boynton,  An- 
thony, Burnett,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Martinelli,  Roseberry, 
Stetson,  Thompson,  Curtin,  Cartwright,  Caminetti,  Mil- 
ler, Campbell. 

The  nine  Senators  whose  names  are  printed  in 
Italics,  when  the  issue  came  to  vote  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  voted  against  the  Stetson  bill  and  for  the  Wright 
bill ;  nine  of  the  ten  whose  names  are  printed  in  ordinary 
letters  voted  for  the  Stetson  bill  and  against  the  Wright 
bill.  The  tenth,  Roseberry,  was  absent,  but  when  he 
found  that  the  vote  had  been  taken,  stated  that  had  he 
been  present  he  would  have  voted  for  the  Stetson  bill 
and  against  the  Wright  bill. 

Furthermore,  Estudillo,  who  finally  voted  for  the 
Wright  bill,  did  not  approve  the  measure  and  voted 
for  it  because  he  feared  the  absolute  rate  feature  of  the 
Stetson  bill  to  be  unconstitutional. 

Thus  at  the  time  the  Stetson  and  the  Campbell  bills 
were  taken  from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  the  Commit- 
tee was  regarded  as  standing: 

For  the  Wright  bill— 8. 

Against  the  Wright  bill — 11. 

For  the  Stetson  bill — 11. 

Against  the  Stetson  bill — 8. 

It  was  certainly  not  in  the  interest  of  the  Stetson 
bill  that  the  measure  was  taken  from  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee and  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Corporations. 

A  glance  at  the  personnel  of  the  Committee  on  Cor- 


132  Railroad  Regulation  Issue 

porations  reveals  a  significant  state  of  affairs.  The  Com- 
mittee consisted  of  the  following  Senators:  Bates, 
Welch,  Wright,  McCartney,  Burnett,  Bills,  Walker, 
Roseberry,  Finn,  Miller,  Kennedy. 

When  the  test  came  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  the 
nine  of  the  eleven  Senators  whose  names  are  printed  in 
italics  voted  for  the  Wright  bill  and  against  the  Stet- 
son bill.  The  two  members  whose  names  are  printed  in 
ordinary  letters,  voted  for  the  Stetson  bill,  and  against 
the  Wright  bill. 

The  line-up  of  the  Committee  on  Corporations,  when 
the  measures  were  taken  from  the  Judiciary  Committee 
and  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Corporations,  was  then: 

For  the  Wright  Bill— 9. 

Against  the  Wright  Bill— 2. 

For  the  Stetson  Bill— 2. 

Against  the  Stetson  Bill— 9. 

The  change  was  certainly  not  made  in  the  interest 
of  the  Stetson  bill. 

The  incident  stirred  up  Campbell  and  other  anti- 
machine  Senators  to  the  fighting  pitch.  An  arrangement 
was  made,  however,  by  which  the  measures  were  to  be 
sent  back  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  after  the  Com- 
mittee on  Corporations  got  through  with  them  that  the 
Judiciary  Committee  might  pass  upon  their  constitu- 
tionality. The  arrangement  had  two  effects — it  silenced 
the  unquieting  protest  of  the  anti-machine  Senators,  and 
it  delayed  consideration  of  the  bills.  But,  as  the  sequel 
showed,  the  arrangement  did  not  help  the  Stetson  bill 
in  the  least. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 
MACHINE  DEFEATS  THE  STETSON  BILL. 

Southern  Pacific  Attorney  Succeeds  in  Clouding  the 
Issue — Railroad  Claquers  Active  in  Advocating  the 
Maximum  Rate,  Which  Was  Designated  as  Little 
Better  Than  No  Rate  At  All— No  Fight  Over  the 
Bill  in  the  Assembly. 

Having  succeeded  in  transferring  the  railroad  regu- 
lation measures  from  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee, 
the  majority  of  whose  members  were  anti-machine,  to 
the  Committee  on  Corporations,  the  majority  of  whose 
members  were  machine,  the  machine  proceeded  to  dis- 
credit the  Stetson  bill,  by  making  it  appear  that  the  State 
Constitution  by  implication  prohibits  the  fixing  of  ab- 
solute railroad  rates,  and  provides  that  the  Railroad 
Commissioners  may  fix  maximum  rates  only.  Peter  F. 
Dunne  was  brought  to  Sacramento  to  make  this  argu- 
ment before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Corporations. 

Dunne,  in  his  address,  showed  greater  ability  than 
integrity.  When  he  had  finished,  even  the  anti-machine 
members  of  the  Committee  were  completely  befuddled. 
Walker,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  who  is 
not  a  lawyer,  groped  in  utter  darkness  thereafter,  until 
he  finally  stumbled  into  the  arms  of  Eddie  Wolfe  and 
Frank  Leavitt  and  Jere  Burke,  when  the  final  vote  on 
the  railroad  bills  was  taken.  It  was  Walker's  only 
stumble  of  the  session.  But  for  his  unfortunate  vote 


134  Stetson  Bil-1  Defeated 

against  the  Stetson  bill  and  for  the  Wright  bill,  Walker 
would  have  made  an  exceptionally  clean  record. 

Not  only  did  Dunne  befog  the  lay  Senators  of  the 
Committee,  he  shook  the  faith  of  men  like  Miller  and 
Roseberry — both  lawyers — on  the  constitutionality  of 
the  absolute  rate.  Miller  recognizes  that  the  absolute 
rate  is  the  only  practical  rate ;  but  until  the  end  of  the 
session  he  was  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  could  be  con- 
stitutionally established.  Dunne  certainly  did  a  good 
job.  To  be  sure,  his  address  was  a  mass  of  misrepre- 
sentations, but  of  misrepresentations  cunningly  put.  He 
shattered  the  implicit  faith  of  the  anti-machine  Senators 
in  the  absolute  rate.  And  that  was  what  he  had  been 
sent  to  Sacramento  to  do.  The  evil  that  Dunne  did 
lived  long  after  he  had  left  the  capital. 

Curiously  enough,  neither  the  term  "absolute  rate" 
nor  "maximum  rate"  appears  in  the  State  Constitution. 

Article  XII,  Section  22,  of  the  Constitution,  provides 
that  the  Railroad  Commissioners  "shall  have  the  power 
and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  establish  rates  of  charges 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  freight  by  rail- 
road or  other  transportation  companies." 

Further  on  in  the  same  section,  it  is  provided  that 
"any  railroad  corporation  or  transportation  company 
which  shall  fail  or  refuse  to  conform  to  such  rates  as 
shall  be  established  by  such  Commissioners,  or  shall 
charge  rates  in  excess  thereof,  *  *  *  shall  be  fined 
not  exceeding  $20,000  for  each  offense." 

The  dispute  between  those  who  stood  for  maximum 
rates — that  is  to  say,  the  members  of  the  machine  lobby, 
the  machine  Senators,  the  Southern  Pacific  attorneys — 


Stetson  Bill  Defeated  135 

and  those  who  wanted  absolute  rates — namely,  the  anti- 
machine  Senators  and  the  attorneys  representing  large 
shipping  interests — waxed  hot  over  the  words  in  the 
above  quotation  which  are  printed  in  Italics. 

The  advocates  of  the  absolute  rate  held,  with  at  least 
apparent  reason,  that  the  words  ''fail  to  conform  to 
such  rates"  mean  just  what  the  dictionaries  say  they 
do:  That  the  railroad  charging  a  rate  in  excess  of  that 
fixed  by  the  Railroad  Commissioners,  or  a  rate  less  than 
that  fixed  by  the  Commissioners,  is  not  conforming  to 
the  rates.  Such,  at  least,  seems  reasonable  construction 
of  a  very  simple  phrase. 

But  not  so,  insisted  the  railroad  lobby.  That  aggre- 
gation of  patriots  skimmed  over  the  words  "fail  to  con- 
form to  such  rates,"  and  saw  only,  "or  shall  charge  in 
excess  thereof."  Inasmuch,  the  pro-railroad  -  element 
held,  as  the  Constitution  says  that  the  railroads  shall  not 
charge  in  excess  of  the  rates  fixed  by  the  Railroad  Com- 
missioners, the  railroads  are  at  liberty  to  reduce  the 
rates  as  fixed  by  the  Commissioners  at  will.  In  other 
words,  according  to  the  pro-railroad  element,  the  Con- 
stitution authorizes  the  fixing  of  maximum  rates  only. 

The  pro-railroad  claquers  even  went  so  far  as  to 
claim  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  the  maxi- 
mum rate  is  the  only  rate  that  can  be  fixed  under  the 
State  Constitution.  They  referred  the  doubtful  to  the 
notorious  decision  in  the  Fresno  passenger  rate  case 
known  as  the  Edson  decision. 

But  no  question  of  maximum  rates  was  involved  in 
the  Edson  case.  To  be  sure,  Chief  Justice  Beatty  took 
occasion  to  say  in  his  opinion  in  that  case  that  his  under- 


136  Stetson  Bill  Defeated 

standing  had  been  that  the  State  Constitution  provides 
for  the  maximum  rate.  But  this  had  no  place  in  the  de- 
cision, was  purely  dictum,  and  is  so  regarded. 

Attorney-General  Webb  has  an  ingenious  but  very 
plausible  explanation  of  Judge  Beatty's  much-discussed 
observation.  General  Webb  points  out  that  previous  to 
the  adoption  of  the  present  State  Constitution — 1879 — 
Justice  Beatty  had  been  engaged  in  the  active  practice  of 
the  law  in  this  State.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
.the  Constitution  of  1879  the  maximum  rate  had  pr-e- 
vailed  in  California.  About  that  time,  Judge  Beatty 
went  to  Nevada  and  was  absent  from  the  State  for  sev- 
eral years.  Returning  to  California,  after  the  State  Con- 
stitution had  been  adopted,  Judge  Beatty  found  no  case 
in  which  the  duties  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners  had 
been  involved,  until  the  Edson  case  came  up. 

"I  am  of  the  opinion,"  said  General  Webb  in  dis- 
cussing this  point,  "that  when  the  Chief  Justice  spoke  of 
the  maximum  rate  in  the  Edson  case  he  was  governed 
by  mental  impressions  received  previous  to  1879,  when 
the  maximum  rate  was  indeed  the  rule  in  California." 

All  this  was  a  very  pretty  theory.  To  the  common- 
sense  mind  "conform  to  the  rates  fixed"  might  mean 
conform  to  them;  the  normal  man  might  be  unable  to 
dig  out  of  the  Constitution  any  prohibition  of  absolute 
rates.  But  the  confusion  caused  by  the  raising  of  the 
question  got  the  Stetson  bill  very  much  in  the  air. 

During  all  the  discussion,  however,  the  Wright  bill 
was  not  considered  at  all.  Nobody  was  thinking  of  the 
Wright  bill — that  is  to  say,  nobody  outside  of  those 
scheming  for  its  passage.  Like  a  mongrel  duck's  egg 


Stetson  Bill  Defeated  137 

under  a  respectable  hen,  it  was  left  to  incubate  undis- 
turbed, to  surprise  everybody  at  the  hatching. 

Finding  themselves  unable  to  clear  away  the  doubt 
which  raising  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of 
the  absolute  rate  had  created,  the  anti-machine  Senators 
and  the  attorneys  of  the  shippers  finally,  after  the  Wright 
bill  had  been  forced  into  prominence,  put  the  case  some- 
thing like  this : 

"If  the  Courts  decide  that  the  maximum  rate  only  is 
constitutional,  then  the  Wright  bill,  which  provides  for 
the  maximum  rate,  will  be  constitutional,  and  the  greater 
part  of  the  Stetson  bill  will  also  be  constitutional. 

"But  if  the  Courts  decide  that  an  absolute  rate  is 
the  only  rate  justified  under  the  Constitution,  then  the 
Wright  bill  will  be  unconstitutional  and  all  the  Stetson 
bill  constitutional." 

This  somewhat  loose  argument  unquestionably  kept 
certain  Senators  who  recognized  the  impracticability  of 
the  maximum  rate,  but  feared  for  the  constitutionality 
of  the  absolute  rate,  in  line  for  the  Stetson  bill. 

With  the  situation  thus  confused,  all  was  in  readi- 
ness to  bring  the  Wright  bill  before  the  public.  This 
was  done  on  February  17th.  Up  to  that  date  the  writer 
honestly  believes  that  not  two  minutes  had  been  de- 
voted to  public  discussion  of  this  measure,  although  the 
Stetson  bill  had  been  discussed  paragraph  by  paragraph, 
line  by  line,  every  word  weighed  carefully. 

The  ceremony  of  giving  the  Wright  bill  prominence 
took  place  behind  the  closed  doors  of  an  executive  ses- 
sion of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Corporations.  These 
executive  sessions,  by  the  way,  are  seldom  held  when 


138  Stetson  Bill  Defeated 

the  best  interests  of  the  public  are  to  be  conserved.  The 
proceedings  were  evidently  pre-arranged.  Senator 
Wright  opened  by  moving  that  the  policy  of  the  Com- 
mittee should  be  that  the  Railroad  Regulation  measure 
to  receive  favorable  consideration  from  the  Committee 
must  provide  for  the  maximum  rate. 

The  vote  was  as  prompt  as  it  was  decisive.  Senator 
Wright's  motion  carried  by  a  vote  of  7  to  3.  The  vote 
was  as  follows : 

For  the  maximum  rate — Bates,  Welch,  Wright,  Mc- 
Cartney, Bills,  Finn,  Kennedy. 

Against  the  maximum  rate — Walker,  Roseberry, 
Miller. 

Burnett,  the  eleventh  member  of  the  Committee,  was 
absent. 

Gradually  it  dawned  upon  Walker,  Miller  and  Rose- 
berry  that  this  meant  the  favorable  recommendation  of 
the  Wright  bill.  The  next  moment  that  fact  was  ham- 
mered into  them  by  the  Committee  deciding  by  the  same 
vote,  7  to  3,  to  recommend  that  the  Stetson  bill  do  not 
pass ;  and  that  the  Wright  bill  do  pass. 

The  machine  had  won  the  opening  skirmish  in  the 
railroad  regulation  controversy.  Incidentally  it  had  come 
out  in  the  open  squarely  for  the  Wright  bill.  From  that 
moment  the  machine  Senators  labored  openly  for  the 
passage  of  the  measure.  However,  the  machine  was  not 
yet  out  of  the  woods  with  its  Railroad  Regulation  bill. 
The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  had  still  to  pass  upon 
it,  and  the  majority  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  was 
anti-machine. 

Wright  followed  the   same  course  in  the  Judiciary 


Stetson  Bill  Defeated  139 

Committee  as  he  had  taken  in  the  Committee  on  Corpora- 
tions, namely,  moved  that 'it  be  the  sense  of  the  Com- 
mittee that  the  Railroad  Regulation  bill  to  be  favorably 
considered  by  the  Committee  should  provide  for  the 
maximum  rate. 

Wright's  motion  was,  however,  lost  by  a  vote  of  8  to 
10.  The  Committee  not  only  rejected  the  maximum 
rate,  but  endorsed  the  absolute  rate,  thus  reversing  the 
Committee  on  Corporations.  The  vote  by  which  this 
was  done  was  as  follows : 

Against  the  maximum  rate,  against  the  Wright  bill 
and  for  the  Stetson  bill — Campbell,  Cutten,  Miller,  Stet- 
son, Thompson,  Caminetti,  Boynton,  Roseberry,  Curtin 
and  Cartwright — 10. 

For  the  maximum  rate,  for  the    Wright     bill     and 
against  the  Stetson  bill — Anthony,   Martinelli,   McCart- 
ney, Wright,  Willis,  Wolfe,  Burnett  and  Estudillo — 8. 
Absent — Savage — 1 . 

Thus  the  Stetson  bill  after  two  months  of  machine 
effort  against  it,  went  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate  from 
the  Judiciary  Committee  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  "do  pass."  Of  the  forty  Senators,  nineteen  were  law- 
yers, and  every  one  of  the  nineteen  was  a  member  of 
the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.  Thus  the  majority  of 
the  lawyers  of  the  Senate,  in  spite  of  the  confusion  which 
the  machine  claquers  had  created,  were  willing  to  take 
their  chances  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  Stetson  bill. 

But  in  fairness  it  must  be  admitted  that  members  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  who  voted  for  the  absolute  rate 
provision  of  the  Stetson  bill  were  still  in  the  befuddled 
condition  in  which  Peter  F.  Dunne's  sophistry  had  left 


140  Stetson  Bill  Defeated 

them.  Senator  Miller,  for  example,  in  explaining  his 
vote  for  the  absolute  rate,  said: 

"I  take  this  stand,  not  that  I  am  convinced  that  the 
Supreme  Court  will  decide  the  absolute  rate  to  be  con- 
stitutional; I  fear  that  it  may  not.  But  the  maximum 
rate  is  little  better  than  no  rate  at  all.  I  wish  the  abso- 
lute rate  provided  in  this  bill,  that  the  Supreme  Court 
may  be  given  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it." 

Senator  Roseberry,  who  voted  for  the  absolute  rate, 
confessed  himself  as  much  at  sea  as  was  Senator  Miller. 
Senator  Estudillo,  who  voted  for  the  maximum  rate,  in- 
sisted, that  he  had  not  been  able  to  make  up  his  mind 
which  should  be  adopted. 

On  the  other  hand,  Senator  Cutten,  himself  a  lawyer 
and  a  close  student  of  the  legal  questions  involved,  stated 
that  while  he  had  thought  originally  that  the  maximum 
rate  is  the  only  constitutional  rate  that  can  be  fixed,  he 
had  been  forced  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  abso- 
lute rate  alone  is  constitutional. 

But  in  the  end  the  Wright  bill  and  not  the  Stetson 
bill  passed  the  Senate.  It  passed  after  a  day  of  debate 
in  which  the  issue  became  clouded,  if  anything,  worse 
than  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings.  Leavitt  and 
Wolfe,  with  Wright  chipping  in  with  a  me-too  word 
now  and  then,  led  the  debate  in  favor  of  the  Wright 
bill.  Senators  Stetson,  Boynton,  Cutten,  Roseberry  and 
Miller  led  the  fight  for  the  Stetson  bill.  Significant 
enough  was  the  fact  that  the  line-up  of  Senate  leaders 
was  precisely  the  same  as  that  in  the  fight  which  the  ma- 
chine carried  on  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill. 

Miller's  argument  in  favor  of  the  Stetson  bill  showed 


Stetson  Bill  Defeated  141 

the  confusion  under  which  the  advocates  of  effective  rail- 
road regulation  were  laboring: 

"If  we  adopt  the  Wright  bill,"  said  Miller,  "the  rail- 
roads will  be  satisfied  and  never  dispute  it  in  the  Courts. 
Whereas,  by  the  adoption  of  the  Stetson  bill  the  railroads 
will  almost  be  compelled  to  appeal  to  the  Courts,  and 
then  we  shall  have  a  quick  decision  on  the  question  in 
which  we  are  all  interested.  If  the  Courts  sustain  the 
Stetson  bill,  we  shall  have  a  law  that  will  do  all  we  want 
for  the  present."  64 

The  debate  on  the  measures  was  on  a  motion  by  Stet- 
son that  the  Stetson  bill  be  substituted  for  the  Wright 
bill.  In  this  Stetson  made  a  serious  mistake.  He  staked 
his  whole  bill  on  one  issue,  that  of  absolute  or  maximum 
rates.  On  all  other  points,  the  Stetson  bill  was  better 
than  the  Wright  bill.  It  was  a  mistake  in  policy  for 
Stetson  to  stake  the  fate  of  his  measure  on  a  single  issue. 

Stetson's  motion  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  16  to  22;  the 
Stetson  bill  was  accordingly  not  substituted  for  the 
Wright  bill,  and  the  Wright  bill,  which  had  come  from 
the  Judiciary  Committee  with  a  minority  report  back  of 
it,  went  to  third  reading  and  final  passage. 

The  vote  by  which  Stetson's  motion  was  defeated, 
was  as  follows: 

To  substitute  the  Stetson  bill  for  the  Wright  bill- 
Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cart- 
wright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Holohan,  Lewis,  Miller,  San- 
ford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson — 16. 

64  The  question  to  which  Senator  Miller  referred  was:  Has  the 
Legislature  power  under  the  Constitution  to  authorize  the  Rail- 
road Commissioners  to  fix  the  absolute  rate?  a  question  upon  which 
the  machine  does  not  propose  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be  required 
to  pass. 


142  Stetson  Bill  Defeated 

Against  substituting  the  Stetson  bill  for  the  Wright 
bill — Anthony,  Bates,  Bills,  Burnett,  Estudillo,  Finn, 
Hare,  Hartman,  Hurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Martinelli, 
McCartney,  Price,  Reily,  Savage,  Walker,  Weed,  Welch, 
Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright— 22. 

Senators  Roseberry  and  Rush  were  absent  from  the 
room  when  the  vote  was  taken  but  both  were  for  the 
Stetson  bill,  which  would  have  made  the  vote  22  to  18 
in  favor  of  the  Wright  bill. 

The  twenty  Senators  whose  names  are  printed  in 
Italics  are  the  twenty  who  voted  with  Leavitt  and  Wolfe 
to  maintain  the  deadlock  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill  that 
the  measure  might  be  so  amended  that  the  electors  of 
California  would  be  denied  a  practical,  State-wide  vote 
for  United  States  Senators.  But  one  of  the  twenty, 
Lewis,  voted  for  the  Stetson  bill,  while  nineteen  of  them 
voted  for  the  Wright  bill. 

On  the  other  hand,  only  three  of  the  Senators,  Estu- 
dillo, Anthony  and  Walker,  who  stood  out  for  an  honest 
Direct  Primary  law,  voted  against  the  Stetson  bill  and 
for  the  Wright  bill.  Walker  had  supported  the  Stetson 
bill  in  the  Committee  on  Corporations,  but  stumbled  into 
the  machine  ranks  when  it  came  to  final  vote.  Had  the 
anti-machine  had  an  organization,  such  as  the  machine 
Democrats  and  Republicans  maintained,  Walker's  blun- 
der could  have  been  prevented.  Probably,  too,  Estudillo 
and  Anthony  would  have  remained  with  the  anti-machine 
forces. 65  This  would  have  given  the  Stetson  bill  twenty- 
one  votes,  and  assured  its  passage. 

65  Walker  and  Estudillo  were  bitterly  condemned  for  their  vote 
for  the  Wright  bill.  Incidentally,  the  writer  has  been  roundly 
criticized  for  offering  the  excuse  in  their  behalf  that  these  two 
men  indicated  by  their  attitude  on  other  measures  throughout  the 


Stetson  Bill  Defeated  143 

Another  vote  that  should  have  been  saved  to  the 
reformers  was  that  of  Burnett.  Burnett  was  clearly 
tricked  into  voting  for  the  Wright  bill.  When  the  Stet- 
son bill  received  the  favorable  recommendation  of  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee, 'machine  claquers  filled  the 
air  with  the  indefinite  promise  that  in  the  event  of  the 
Wright  bill  becoming:  a  law,  a  constitutional  amendment 
would  be  adopted,  by  which  all  ambiguity  in  the  State 
Constitution  on  the  question  of  maximum  and  absolute 
rates  would  be  removed.  The  amendment  was  then 
pending  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  which 
finally  reported  it  favorably. 

After  the  Wright  bill  had  been  passed,  the  amend- 
ment was  defeated  by  machine  votes,  as  will  be  shown  in 
the  next  chapter. 


session  that  they  would  have  continued  with  the  reform  element 
In  the  matter  of  railroad  regulation,  had  the  anti-machine  Senators 
been  organized  to  give  effective  resistance  to  the  machine.  Per- 
haps the  sanest  of  this  criticism,  certainly  the  most  reasonable, 
Is  from  a  gentleman  who  was  a  close  observer  of  the  work  of 
the  session.  He  says: 

"The  course  of  the  railroad  rate  bill  from  my  point  of  view 
looked  somewhat  different  in  many  details,  at  any  rate,  from  your 
account  of  it.  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  think  that  it  was  defeated 
by  any  chance  at  the  hands  of  a  friendly  Legislature.  I  think 
that  what  chances  there  were  were  mostly  added  to  the  number 
of  votes  the  bill  got  and  that  the  attitude  of  men  like  Walker 
and  Estudillo  on  that  bill  was  fundamental  and  to  have  been 
expected  from  the  start.  Of  course  what  you  say  about  the 
woeful  lack  of  organization  amongst  the  individual  men  was  only 
too  apparent.  That  phenomenon  reaches  back  still  deeper  and  is 
based  upon  the  quality  of  human  nature  which  exerts  itself  more 
persistently  and  more  energetically  and  with  soldier-like  rhythm 
of  compact  organization  when  private  selfish  interests  are  involved, 
than  when  the  general  interest  and  somewhat  vague  uncentered 
end  of  public  welfare  is  concerned." 

But  in  spite  of  this  very  reasonable  view,  from  a  very  reason- 
able gentleman,  the  fact  remains  that  in  the  Committee  on  Cor- 
porations, Walker  stood  out  against  the  machine  on  this  very 
issue,  and  that  in  the  direct  primary  fight  both  Walker  and 
Estudillo  stood  out  against  the  machine  to  the  end.  Had  the  anti- 
machine  element  been  organized,  the  Stetson  bill  and  not  the 
Wright  bill  would  in  all  probability  have  been  passed. 


144  Stetson  Bill  Defeated 

In  the  closing  days  of  the  session,  when  Burnett  was 
urging  that  steps  be  taken  for  investigation  into  the  in- 
crease of  freight  rates,  he  called  attention  to  the  fate  of 
that  railroad-regulation  amendment. 

"I  was  led  to  vote  as  I  did  for  the  Railroad  Regulation 
bill,"  he  said,  "on  the  understanding  that  that  consti- 
tutional amendment  would  be  adopted.  As  you  know, 
it  was  defeated.  My  attitude  on  the  regulation  bill  would 
have  been  very  different  had  I  known  that  the  amend- 
ment was  to  be  rejected." 

The  Wright  bill  met  with  practically  no  opposition  in 
the  Assembly,  being  rushed  through  the  Lower  House 
in  the  closing  -hours  of  the  session.  Had  the  Stet- 
son bill  passed  the  Senate,  the  machine  would  have  tried 
to  block  and  amend  it  in  the  Assembly  as  was  done  with 
the  Direct  Primary  bill,  but  the  measure  would  probably 
have  been  passed. 

Had  the  anti -machine  forces  in  the  Senate  been 
organized,  the  Stetson,  and  not  the  Wright  bill,  would 
have  passed  that  body.  Without  organization,  or  even 
definite  policy,  in  the  face  of  organized  machine  opposi- 
tion, it  is  astonishing — and  at  the  same  time  most 
encouraging — that  eighteen  of  the  forty  Senators  stood 
by  the  Stetson  bill  to  the  end. 

X 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
RAILROAD  MEASURES. 

Constitutional  Amendment  to  Clear  the  Way  for  an 
Effective  Railroad  Regulation  Bill  Defeated — Rate 
Investigation  Delayed  Until  Too  Late  for  Effective- 
ness— Resolution  to  Continue  Investigation  Defeated 
— Reciprocal  Demurrage  Bill  Becomes  a  Law — 
"Error"  in  the  Full  Crew  Bill 

The  anti-machine  members  of  the  Legislature  had 
not  proceeded  far  in  their  efforts  to  pass  an  effective 
railroad  regulation  law,  before  they  became  convinced  that 
at  best  only  a  make-shift  measure  is  possible,  until  cer- 
tain alleged  ambiguities  of  those  sections  of  the  State 
Constitution  prescribing  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
State  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  have  been  re- 
moved. Where,  to  the  common  sense  mind,  no  ambi- 
guities exist,  machine  claquers  and  Southern  Pacific 
attorneys  can  read  them  into  the  Constitution  very  easily, 
as  in  the  dispute  as  to  whether  the  absolute  or  the  mini- 
mum rate  is  constitutional. 

Advised  by  the  attorneys  representing  the  shipping 
interests,  the  anti-machine  members  undertook  to  sim- 
plify the  language  of  the  sections  in  dispute,  so  that  a 
wayfaring  man  though  a  judge  on  the  bench  or  a  machine 
legislator  need  not  err  in  the  construction  thereof. 

Early  in  the  session,  Senator  Campbell  had  intro- 
duced a  constitutional  amendment  to  that  end.  The 


146  Railroad  Measures 

amendment  went  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  on  January 
14th.  The  majority  of  the  committee,  openly  against  the 
machine,  favored  the  submission  to  the  people  of  such  an 
amendment.  But  it  was  not  until  February  22d  that 
the  amendment — or  rather  a  substitute  for  it — was  re- 
ported back  to  the  Senate. 

The  day  following,  February  23d,  Senator  Campbell 
had  the  measure  re-referred  to  the  committee,  that  an 
amendment  better  calculated  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
State  might  be  prepared.  The  committee  took  until 
March  5th  to  make  its  report.  The  anti-machine  Sena- 
tors on  the  committee  had  to  fight  for  every  inch  of  the 
way  toward  securing  a  report  upon  an  effective  amend- 
ment. This,  however,  they  finally  succeeded  in  doing. 
The  second  substitute  amendment  smoothed  out  the  am- 
biguities and  the  alleged  ambiguities  of  the  Constitution, 
of  which  the  machine  legislators  made  so  much  during 
the  session,  and  of  which  it  is  feared  the  courts  may  make 
much  later  on.  For  the  long  list  of  constitutional  powers 
and  duties  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners,  which  are 
so  worded  as  to  confuse  the  legal  mind,  the  framers  of 
the  amendment  substituted  the  following: 

"The  Commission  (Railroad)  and  each  of  its  mem- 
bers shall  have  such  powers  and  perform  such  duties  as 
are  now  or  may  hereafter  be  provided  for  by  law."  Under 
that  simple  permission  there  could  have  been  no  ques- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  to  empower  the 
Railroad  Commissioners  to  fix  a  system  of  absolute 
rates.  Section  23,  Article  XII.,  of  the  Constitution, 
which  at  least  confused  the  lawyers  employed  by  the  rail- 
roads to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  Stetson  bill,  was  re- 


Railroad  Measures  147 

pealed  entirely.  The  adoption  of  the  amendment,  would, 
had  it  been  approved  by  the  people  at  the  general  election 
of  1910,  have  removed  every  impediment  which  railroad 
attorneys  claim  to  be  in  the  way  of  an  effective  railroad 
regulation  law  for  California. 

Curiously  enough  the  machine  Senators  who  had  been 
so  much  exercised  over  the  alleged  ambiguities  of  the 
Constitution  when  the  Stetson  bill  was  under  con- 
sideration were  found  opposed  to  the  submission  of 
the  amendment  to  the  people.  Every  Senator  who 
voted  against  the  amendment  had  voted  against  the 
Stetson  bill  and  had  voted  for  the  Wright  bill.  Bur- 
nett, who  had  been  led  to  believe  when  he  voted 
for  the  Wright  bill  that  the  amendment  would 
be  submitted  to  the  people,  voted  for  the  amendment. 
Walker  also  switched  back  from  the  machine.  Wright 
and  McCartney,  who  had  voted  against  the  Stetson  bill, 
also  went  on  record  for  the  amendment.  The  remain- 
ing fourteen  Senators  who  voted  for  it,  to  a  man,  had 
voted  for  the  Stetson  bill  and  against  the  passage  of 
the  Wright  bill.  But  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Senate  was 
required  for  the  amendment's  adoption.  This  meant 
twenty-seven  votes.  The  amendment  was  defeated,  the 
vote  being  nineteen  for  submission  of  the  measure  to  the 
people,  and  sixteen  against.  66 

This  ended  all  hope  of  a  model  railroad  regulation 


66  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment:  Bell,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Burnett,  Cami- 
netti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Holohan,  McCartney, 
Miller,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Strobridge,  Sanford,  Thompson,  Walker, 
Wright— 19. 

Against  the  amendment:  Anthony,  Bills,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Hart- 
man,  Hurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  Price,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed, 
Welch,  Willis,  Wolfe — 16. 


148  Railroad  Measures 

law  for  California  until  1913,  for  the  Constitution  must 
be  amended  before  such  a  law  can  be  realized.  If  a  satis- 
factory amendment  be  adopted  in  1911,  it  must  before 
going  into  effect  be  ratified  by  the  people.  This  ratifica- 
tion would  come  in  1912.  The  Legislature  of  1913 
would  then  be  able  to  proceed  with  the  passage  of  the 
model  statute. 

An  attempt  to  investigate  the  causes  and  the  neces- 
sity of  the  arbitrary  increase  in  transcontinental  freight 
rates  failed  as  completely  as  did  the  attempted  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution. 

Early  in  the  session,  on  January  18,  to  be  exact,  Sena- 
tor Caminetti  introduced  a  resolution  which  directed  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Federal  Relations  to  inquire  into 
the  cause  of  the  increase  in  freight  rates,  and  to  report 
its  findings  to  the  Senate.  Two  days  later  Caminetti 
introduced  a  second  and  companion  resolution,  which 
provided  that  investigation  should  be  made  into  the 
causes  for  the  increase  in  express  charges.  On  Senator 
Leavitt's  motion  this  last  resolution  was  made  a  special 
order  for  January  22,  when  the  first  resolution  was  to 
come  up.  The  Senate  on  the  22d  re-referred  the  reso- 
lutions back  to  the  committee. 

The  Senate  Committee  on  Federal  Relations  was,  by 
Caminetti's  clever  tactics  in  having  the  resolutions  go  to 
that  body,  forced  into  a  prominence  which  evidently 
worried  the  machine.  It  consisted  of  Burnett,  Black  and 
Sanford.  Black,  Republican,  and  Sanford,  Democrat, 
were  working  openly  against  the  machine.  Burnett,  while 
he  managed  to  land  on  the  machine  side  of  things  at 
critical  points  in  the  progress  of  the  session,  was  by  no 


Railroad  Measures  149 

means  a  machine  coolie.  Had  it  been  known  that  the 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations  was  to  be  charged  with 
an  investigation  into  railroad  affairs,  a  very  different 
committee  would  unquestionably  have  been  appointed. 
The  machine's  problem  was  to  correct  the  blunder  made 
when  the  anti-machine  forces  were  given  a  majority  on 
what  had  become  a  committee  charged  with  the  handling 
of  an  important  railroad  issue.  The  ease  with  which  the 
blunder  was  corrected  speaks  volumes  for  the  machine's 
resourcefulness. 

The  air  at  the  capitol  suddenly  became  permeated  with 
the  idea  that  a  committee  of  three  was  altogether  too 
small  to  conduct  so  important  an  investigation  as  that 
proposed  in  the  Caminetti  resolutions.  Accordingly  the 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations  very  readily  recom- 
mended, when  it  reported  the  resolutions  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  the  investigation  be 
held,  that  two  Senators  be  added  to  the  committee,  mak- 
ing it  a  committee  of  five.  Had  the  machine  observed  the 
unwritten  rules  of  Senatorial  courtesy, 67  which  machine 
Senators  insist  upon  so  loudly,  the  anti-machine  element 
would  have  been  safe  enough  in  doing  this.  Senatorial 
courtesy  required  that  the  author  of  the  resolutions,  Cam- 
inetti, be  made  one  of  the  two  additional  members.  This 


67  Machine  Senators  habitually  exact  the  utmost  consideration 
and  courtesy  from  the  anti-machine  Senators,  and  habitually  repay 
t  with  deceit  and  trickery.  The  curious  feature  of  this  is  that 
the  anti-machine  Senators  continue  to  extend  the  courtesy  and 
continue  to  be  tricked  and  imposed  upon.  A  shutting  off  of  "Sen- 
atorial courtesy"  would  go  far  toward  solving  the  problem  of  ma- 
chine domination  of  the  Legislature. 


150  Railroad  Measures 

would  have  given  the  anti-machine  element  at  least  three 
members  of  the  enlarged  committee,  a  condition  which 
did  not  line  with  machine  purposes  at  all.  So  Senatorial 
courtesy  was  thrown  to  the  winds,  Senator  Caminetti  was 
ignored,  and  Senators  Wolfe  and  Bills  were  named  as 
the  additional  members  of  the  committee.  The  machine 
seldom  blunders,  but  when  it  does,  usually  covers  its 
blunders  with  astonishing  directness  and  dispatch.  A 
glance  at  the  records  made  by  Senators  Wolfe  and 
Bills,  which  will  be  found  in  Table  "A"  of  the  Appendix, 
will  show  the  truth  of  this  statement. 

The  machine's  next  move  was  to  delay  the  investiga- 
tion. For  one  reason  and  another  the  investigation  was 
delayed.  Finally,  on  February  19,  Caminetti  gave  notice 
that  on  the  following  Tuesday,  he  would  move  that  the 
committee  be  discharged  and  a  second  committee  or- 
dered to  carry  out  the  instructions  contained  in  the 
resolutions.  This  declaration  of  war  stirred  the  machine 
to  action — machine  action.  Assurances  were  given  that 
the  investigation  would  be  held,  but  it  was  March  12, 
almost  two  months  after  the  resolution  had  been  intro- 
duced, and  only  twelve  days  before  adjournment,  before 
the  committee  placed  its  first  witness  on  the  stand. 

At  that  time  the  Senate  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
Direct  Primary  fight,  and  in  addition,  the  machine  after 
months  of  planning  was  sending  literally  hundreds  of 
measures  into  Senate  and  Assembly  for  final  action. 
There  was  no  time  nor  were  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee in  a  condition  to  conduct  the  investigation  which 
the  anti-machine  element  had  contemplated.  But  hurried 
hearings  were  held,  and  a  mass  of  evidence  of  railroad 


Railroad  Measures  151 

and  express  company  extortion  brought  into  the  open. 
The  interested  reader  will  find  the  testimony  printed  in 
the  Senate  Journal  of  March  23,  1909. 

Men  of  the  standing  of  Edwin  Bonnheim,  68  treasurer 
and  manager  of  Weinstock,  Lubin  &  Co. ;  Russell  D.  Car- 
penter, auditor  of  Hale  Brothers,  Inc. ;  J.  O.  Bracken, 
manager  of  the  California  Commercial  Association;  C. 
H.  Bentley  of  the  California  Fruit  Canners  Association ; 
all  testified  that  the  increase  in  express  and  freight 
charges  has  worked  great  hardship  upon  the  State.  They 
showed  that  in  the  final  analysis  the  consumer  pays  the 
increased  charges.  Futhermore,  testimony  was  produced 
which  at  least  indicated  that  the  transportation  com- 
panies, if  economically  not  to  say  honestly  managed, 
would  receive  fair  returns  on  their  legitimate  invest- 
ments, were  even  lower  freight  rates  to  be  charged  than 
those  exacted  prior  to  the  increase  of  1908.  It  was  also 
shown  that  the  State  of  California  could  institute  and 
conduct  an  examination  into  railroad  affairs  before  the 


68  Mr.  Bonnheim  testified  that  prior  to  the  new  schedule  of  ex- 
press rates  enforced  between  New  York  and  the  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, the  rate  was  $8.00  per  hundred  for  shipments  of  from  10,000 
to  20,000  pounds;  $9.00  per  hundred  for  5,000  to  10,000  pounds;  $10.00 
per  hundred  for  2,000  to  5,000  pounds;  $11.00  per  hundred  from 
1,000  to  2,000  pounds,  and  $12.00  from  500  to  1,000  pounds;  $13.50 
from  100  to  500  pounds. 

That  the  withdrawal  of  the  bulk  rates  in  December,  1908,  re- 
sulted in  an  advance  of  35  per  cent  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
2,000  pound  rate,  and  an  advance  of  50  per  cent  by  the  withdrawal 
of  the  5,000  pound  rate;  an  advance  of  66%  per  cent  by  the  with- 
drawal of  the  10,000  pound  rate,  and  that  the  withdrawal  of  the 
20,000  pound  rate  amounted  to  an  advance  of  92  8-10  per  cent. 


152  Railroad  Measures 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  69  It  was  clear  to  all 
that  thorough  investigation  under  the  Caminetti  resolu- 
tions would  prove  of  enormous  benefit  to  the  State.  That 
the  committee  could  do  little  or  nothing  in  the  short  time 
remaining  before  adjournment  was  also  recognized. 
Burnett  had  come  out  for  thorough  investigation,  giving 
the  anti-machine  forces  a  majority  of  the  committee. 
Witness  after  witness  representing  the  large  shippers  and 
importers  of  the  State  urged  that  the  investigation  be 
carried  on  even  after  the  Legislature  had  adjourned. 
Burnett  as  chairman  of  the  committee  was  urging  this 
course,  but  it  was  March  23,  the  day  before  adjournment, 
before  he  could  get  his  committee  report  ready,  and  filed 
with  the  Senate,  as  basis  for  a  resolution  to  continue 
the  investigation  after  the  Legislature  had  adjourned. 
There  were  but  eleven  dependable  anti-machine  Senators 
in  addition  to  Burnett  who  were  within  reach  of  the 
capitol.  But  the  machine  had  a  safe  majority  within 


69  Senator  Cartwright  actually  introduced  a  resolution  calling 
upon  the  Attorney-General  to  institute  proceedings  before  the  In- 
terstate Commerce  Commission: 

To  determine  whether  existing  rates  are  reasonable  or  un- 
reasonable. 

To  ascertain,  fix  and  establish  a  reasonable  schedule  of  freight 
rates,  and  to  enforce  the  same. 

To  determine  whether  or  not  any  existing  rate  is  discrimina- 
tory. 

And  to  prevent  further  discrimination  between  persons  or  places. 

The  resolution  carried  an  appropriation  of  $25,000  to  ensure 
competent  legal  and  expert  assistance. 

The  resolution  was  introduced  on  February  4.  It  went  first  to 
the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  then  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, then  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  from  which  it  emerged 
March  1  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted.  On  March  2 
it  was  sent  back  to  the  Committee  on  Finance  and  was  never 
heard  from  again.  The  enormous  benefit  to  the  State  if  such  an 
investigation  could  be  honestly  and  effectively  carried  on,  will  be 
recognized. 


Railroad  Measures  153 

call.     Burnett's  resolution  was  defeated,  the  investigation 
denied,  by  a  vote  of  twelve  for  to  sixteen  against.70 

But  two  important  railroad  measures  were  finally 
passed  by  the  Legislature.  The  first  of  these  was  the 
"Full  Crew  bill,"  which  required  adequate  manning  of 
railroad  trains.  After  being  held-up  as  long  as  the 
machine  dared,  the  bill  was  finally  passed.  But  the  "Full 
Crew  bill"  met  with  one  of  those  unfortunate  "errors"  71 
which  played  such  important  parts  in  the  passage  of  the 
Anti-Gambling  bill  and  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  When 
the  Legislature  had  adjourned  this  error  was  discovered, 
and  Governor  Gillett  refused  to  'sign  the  bill  because 
of  it. 

70  The  vote   was   as   follows: 

For  the  resolution:  Bell,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Burnett,  Caminetti, 
Cutten,  Estudillo,  Holohan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Thomp- 
son—12. 

Against  the  resolution:  Anthony,  Bates,  Bills,  Finn,  Hartman, 
Kurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed, 
Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright— 16. 

71  E.    F.    Mitchell,    Executive    Secretary    to    Governor    Gillett, 
makes  the  following  statement  regarding  this  particular  error: 

"The  electric  companies  which  run  interurban  trains,  also 
claimed  that  the  bill,  as  prepared,  applied  to  them,  and  would 
place  upon  them  an  unnecessary  burden  and  expense. 

"There  is  no  doubt  that  section  three  of  the  act  applies  to 
motor  cars  and  electric  cars.  The  language  is  very  plain.  Section 
one  of  the  bill  describes  passenger  trains,  section  two  refers  to 
freight  trains,  and  section  three  says  "all  other  trains  not  pro- 
pelled by  steam  locomotives."  Now,  there  are  only  two  classes 
of  cars  that  are  not  propelled  by  steam  locomotives,  and  those 
are  motor  and  electric  cars.  In  the  Governor's  opinion,  an  error 
was  made  in  endeavoring  to  amend  it,  so  it  would  not  apply  to 
motor  cars  and  electric  cars.  The  amendment  was  prepared,  and 
we  had  here  in  the  office,  during  the  argument  on  the  bill,  the 
original  committee  amendments  proposed.  The  amendment  was 
to  be  made  after  the  word  "train"  on  the  second  line  and  had 
this  amendment  been  made  as  contemplated,  it  would  have  ex- 
cluded motor  cars  and  electric  cars,  but  instead  of  having  been 
made  on  line  two,  as  expected,  it  was  carried  into  line  three, 
where  it  gave  the  bill  an  entirely  different  meaning.  It  was  one 
of  those  unfortunate  things  that  crept  into  legislation  through 
an  oversight  of  somebody,  which  could  have  been  readily  corrected 
if  the  bill  had  been  watched.  The  insertion  of  this  amendment 
in  the  wrong  place,  instead  of  excluding  motor  cars  and  electric 
cars,  as  intended,  included  them.  This  error  was  not  discovered 
until  the  bill  came  up  before  the  Governor  for  consideration." 


154  Railroad  Measures 

*  The  second  important  railroad  measure  passed  was 
the  Reciprocal  Demurrage  bill,  introduced  in  the  Senate 
by  Miller,  and  in  the  Assembly  by  Drew.  As  finally 
passed  the  bill  provides  that  railroad  companies  which 
fail  to  supply  shippers  with  cars  when  proper  requisition 
has  been  made  for  them,  shall  pay  the  injured  shipper 
demurrage  at  the  rate  of  $5  per  car  per  day.  On  the  other 
hand,  shippers  who  fail  to  load  or  unload  cars  after 
a  stated  time,  are  required  to  pay  the  railroad  $6  daily  as 
demurrage.  The  extra  dollar  which  the  shippers  are 
required  to  pay  the  railroads  is  exacted  to  compensate 
the  railroads  for  rental  of  the  car. 

Similar  laws  up  to  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
Miller-Drew  bill  had  been  adopted  by  seventeen  States 
of  the  Union,  including  Oregon  and  Texas.  During 
the  recent  car  shortage,  it  is  alleged  that  empty  cars 
needed  in  California,  were  sent  into  Oregon  and  into 
Texas,  that  the  railroads  might  escape  the  demurrage 
charges  exacted  in  those  two  States.  California,  without  a 
demurrage  law,  was  helpless.  At  the  session  of 
1907,  however,  the  machine,  in  complete  control 
of  the  Senate,  defeated  a  reciprocal  demurrage 
bill.  To  be  sure  the  demurrage  was  higher  in  the  meas- 
ure proposed  in  1907  than  in  that  passed  at  the  session 
of  1909,  but  it  was  the  principle  of  demurrage,  not  its 
amount,  that  the  machine  was  against  in  1907.  In  1909, 
however,  not  a  Senator  voted  against  the  bill.  And  in 
this  connection  there  is  a  story  told  which  unquestion- 
ably had  its  bearing  upon  the  fate  of  the  Reciprocal  De- 
murrage bill  at  the  1909  session.  The  story  deals  with  a 
political  adventure  in  the  life  of  one  Henry  Lynch. 


Railroad  Measures  155 

Mr.  Lynch  voted  against  reciprocal  demurrage  in 
1907.  He  voted  neither  for  nor  against  reciprocal  de- 
murrage in  1909,  for  he  was  not  at  Sacramento  to  vote. 
Mr.  Lynch  was  not  at  Sacramento  to  vote  in  1909,  for 
one  reason  at  least,  because  he  did  vote  against  recipro- 
cal demurrage  in  1907. 

Mr.  Lynch  hailed  from  the  Thirty-first  Senatorial 
District,  which  takes  in  San  Benito  and  San  Luis  Obispo 
counties.  These  counties  are  intensely  Republican ;  they 
are  also  farming  communities.  And  since  the  one-time 
Senator  Lynch  voted  against  the  Reciprocal  Demurrage 
bill,  the  farmers  have  seen  tons  upon  tons  of  their  prod- 
ucts rot  in  the  fields  because  they  could  not  get  cars  to 
move  their  crops. 

But  while  the  farmers  of  San  Luis  Obispo  and  San 
Benito  counties  were  watching  their  products  rot  for 
want  of  cars  to  move  them,  it  is  alleged  that  cars  were 
being  sent  from  California  to  Oregon  to  meet  the 
requisitions  of  Oregon  shippers.  Oregon  had  a  recipro- 
cal demurrage  law  on  her  statute  books;  California  had 
not. 

Senator  Lynch's  vote  against  the  Reciprocal  Demur- 
rage bill  was  made  a  sort  of  issue  in  San  Benito  and 
San  Luis  Obispo  counties  at  the  election  of  1908.  A.  E. 
Campbell,  Democrat,  was  running  against  Mr.  Lynch, 
Republican,  for  the  State  Senate.  Right  or  wrong — 
the  reader  may  judge  which — the  farmers  of  the  two 
counties  credited  the  defeat  of  the  Reciprocal  Demurrage 
bill  not  to  the  Republican  Party,  but  to  the  Republican 
machine,  or  better  described  perhaps  as  the  Republican- 
Democratic  machine,  that  dominates  the  State,  a  machine 


156  Railroad  Measures 

which  the  people  of  California  are  just  now  engaged  in 
smashing. 

Being  good  Republicans,  the  people  of  Mr.  Lynch's 
district  gave  Mr.  Taft  a  plurality  of  more  than  1,700; 
remembering  the  defeat  of  the  Reciprocal  Demurrage  bill, 
they  gave  Mr.  Campbell,  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
Senate,  a  plurality  of  416.  The  fact  that  a  United  States 
Senator  was  to  be  elected  didn't  influence  the  Republi- 
cans of  San  Luis  Obispo  County  at  all.  They  elected  a 
Democrat  to  the  State  Senate  because  they  knew  him  to 
be  free  from  machine  domination — a  machine  maintained 
for  the  purpose  of  defeating  good  measures,  such  as  the 
Reciprocal  Demurrage  bill,  and  furthering  the  passage  of 
bad  ones. 

But  the  influence  of  Lynch's  vote  against  the  Recipro- 
cal Demurrage  bill  was  not  confined  to  San  Luis 
Obispo  and  San  Benito  Counties.  It  spread  over  into 
the  adjoining  Twenty-ninth  District,  which  takes  in 
Santa  Cruz  and  San  Mateo  Counties.  These  counties 
are  also  intensely  Republican.  They  gave  Taft  a  plural- 
ity of  2,799.  But  they  gave  the  Democratic  candidate 
for  the  State  Senate,  James  B.  Holohan,  a  plurality  of 
677.  Holohan  ran  3,476  votes  ahead  of  his  ticket  in  a 
district  where  only  9,483  votes  were  cast  for  State  Sen- 
ator. Holohan  was  known  to  be  free  of  machine  influ- 
ences. He  could  be  counted  upon  to  vote  for  a  Recipro- 
cal Demurrage  bill  without  first  consulting  the  Southern 
Pacific's  political  agent,  Jere  Burke.  And  the  Republi- 
can whose  place  he  took  in  the  Senate  had  voted  against 
the  Reciprocal  Demurrage  bill  of  1907. 

The  election  of  Holohan  and  Campbell  unquestion- 


Railroad  Measures  157 

ably  had  its  influence  on  the  passage  of  the  Demurrage 
bill.  Not  a  member  of  the  Senate  cast  his  vote  against 
it,  although  several  of  the  Senators  who  had  voted 
against  the  bill  two  years  before,  sat  in  the  Senate  of 
1909.  Among  these  were  ten  Senators  who,  during  the 
session  of  1909,  were  conspicuously  on  the  wrong  side  of 
most  questions.  They  were  Senators  Bates,  Hartman, 
Leavitt,  McCartney,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed,  Willis,  Wolfe 
and  Wright.  The  ten,  for  example,  constituted  half  the 
twenty  Senators  who  opposed  the  plan  to  give  The 
People  State-wide  popular  vote  in  the  selection  of  United 
States  Senators.  Only  seven  Senators  voted  against 
the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill.  Five  of  the  seven — 
Hartman,  Leavitt,  Reily,  Weed  and  Wolfe — had  voted 
against  reciprocal  demurrage  in  1907.  But  there  was 
a  harkening  to  the  demand  of  The  People  in  1909,  which 
had  been  wanting  two  years  before.  Seven  of  these 
ten  Senators,  who  voted  against  reciprocal  demurrage 
in  1907 — Bates,  Hartman,  McCartney,  Savage,  Willis, 
Wolfe  and  Wright — voted  for  reciprocal  demurrage  in 
1909.  Three  of  them— Leavitt,  Reily  and  Weed— did  not 
vote  at  all. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  CLUB  BILLS. 

Drawn  By  Committees  of  the  Ablest  San  Francisco  At- 
torneys Not  Under  Retainer  of  Prison-Dodging  Cap- 
tains of  Industry — Measures  Not  Allowed  to  Reach 
Senate  or  Assembly,  but  Killed  in  Committees — 
Grove  L.  Johnson's  Keen  Opposition. 

The  graft  prosecution  at  San  Francisco  not  only 
brought  the  fact  squarely  before  the  public  that  large 
corporations  sometimes  catch  the  easiest  way  to  achieve 
their  purposes  by  bribing  public  officials,  but  that  it  is  a 
deal  easier  to  pass  a  camel  through  the  eye  of  a  needle 
than  a  millionaire  offender  through  the  legal  cobwebs  of 
technicality  to  a  cell  at  San  Quentin  or  Folsom.  72 

That  the  technical  defense  in  criminal  cases  was  sub- 
ject to  grave  abuses  had  been  generally  recognized.  But 
it  took  the  graft  cases  at  San  Francisco  to  fairly  rub 
this  unpleasant  fact  into  the  law-abiding  element.  Be- 
cause for  the  first  time  in  the  practice  of  criminal  law  in 
California,  unlimited  wealth  was  available  to  employ  the 
best  legal  talent  to  defend  men  under  indictment. 

72  No  sooner  had  the  indictments  been  returned  in  the  San 
Francisco  cases  than  the  validity  of  the  indicting  Grand  Jury 
was  attacked.  For  months  that  issue  occupied  the  attention  of 
the  Courts.  One  by  one  the  members  of  the  Grand  Jury  were 
dragged  into  Court,  and  in  effect  placed  on  trial  that  technical 
disqualification  if  such  existed  might  be  established.  The  greater 
part  of  a  day  was,  for  example,  consumed  in  thrashing  over  the 
question  whether  one  or  three  motions  had  been  made  in  nom- 
inating the  stenographer  to  the  Grand  Jury. 

Then  came  appeals  to  the  higher  Courts  which  occupied  more 
months  and  all  but  endless  labor  and  expense. 

When  the  attacks  on   the   Grand  Jury  had  been  met  and  dis- 


Commonwealth  Club  Bills  159 

The  defending  lawyers  took  advantage  of  every  tech- 
nicality. They  emphasized  the  most  trivial  of  them. 
Gradually  it  began  to  dawn  upon  The  People  that  here 
were  legal  refuges,  based  upon  the  most  absurd  of  tech- 
nicalities, the  sweeping  away  of  which  would  in  no  way 
injure  the  substantial  rights  of  a  person  charged  with 
crime,  refuges  which  were  available  to  the  rich  man  but 
denied  to  the  poor  or  moderately  well-to-do. 

To  be  sure,  any  person  accused  could  make  his  tech- 
nical defense  if  he  had  the  means  to  employ  the  necessary 
counsel.  But  in  face  of  the  astonishing  performances 
going  on  in  the  courts  at  San  Francisco,  it  soon  became 
apparent  to  the  thoughtful,  that  no  man,  whose  fortune 
was  expressed  in  terms  of  less  than  five  ciphers  could 
make  such  a  defense. 

Thus  the  unpalatable  truth  was  forced  home,  that  we 
have  in  California  a  technical  defense  available  for  the 
rich  man  charged  with  crime,  which  is  in  effect  denied 
even  those  of  the  so-called  middle  classes. 

With  this  conviction  came  demand  of  reform  of  the 
criminal  laws  to  ensure: 


posed  of,  and  the  defendants  brought  to  the  trial  Court,  the 
prosecution  found  its  labors  scarcely  begun.  Every  trial  juror  was 
placed  on  trial.  Weeks  and  even  months  were  required,  because 
of  technical  objections,  to  secure  a  trial  jury. 

Just  before  the  Legislature  convened,  Abe  Ruef,  had,  as  example, 
been  convicted  by  a  jury  in  the  securing  of  which  the  metropolis 
of  the  State  had  been  raked  as  with  a  fine-tooth  comb  for  talesmen 
who  were  not  technically  disqualified  to  serve.  Thousands  were 
available  who  would  have  given  the  defendant  a  fair  trial,  but 
in  all  San  Francisco  very  few  could  be  found  who  were  not  be- 
cause of  one  technical  reason  or  another  disqualified. 

After  conviction  came  the  defendant's  appeal,  in  which  the 
most  trivial  reasons  were  accepted  for  freeing  the  defendant  whose 
technical  defense  had  failed  him  in  the  lower  Courts.  Former 
Mayor  Schmitz  of  San  Francisco,  after  conviction  of  extortion, 
and  Abe  Ruef,  after  having  pleaded  guilty  to  the  charge,  were 
given  their  freedom  under  circumstances  which,  to  put  it  mildly, 
shocked  the  whole  State. 


160  Commonwealth  Club  Bills 

(1)  A  prompt  trial  of  an  accused  person  on  the 
merits  of  the  case. 

(2)  A  prompt  judgment  in  the  case  of  a  verdict  of 
guilty. 

(3)  A  prompt  hearing  of  the  case  in  the  Court  of 
Appeal. 

The  machine  was,  of  course,  against  any  such  "wicked 
innovations,"  as  Assemblyman  Grove  L.  Johnson  would 
have  called  them. 

However,  at  San  Francisco,  three  considerable  bodies, 
the  Bar  Association,  the  Commonwealth  Club  and  the 
Citizens'  League  of  Justice,  took  the  matter  up,  and  for 
months  had  the  ablest  lawyers  of  the  State — at  any  rate 
the  ablest  not  retained  for  the  defense  of  capitalists 
under  indictment — at  work  wrestling  with  the  problem 
of  simplifying  the  criminal  codes  and  doing  away  so  far 
as  possible  with  technical  defense,  except  in  such  cases 
as  the  substantial  rights  of  the  defendant  might  be  in- 
volved. 

A  committee  consisting  of  J.  C.  McKinstry,  J.  J. 
Dwyer,  Lester  H.  Jacobs,  Oscar  Cushing  and  Warren 
Olney  Jr.  was  appointed  for  this  purpose  by  the  Citizens' 
League  of  Justice.  The  Commonwealth  Club  appointed 
Beverly  L.  Hodghead,  Orrin  K.  McMurray,  Alex.  G. 
Eells,  Fairfax  H.  Wheelan,  Sidney  V.  Smith,  Lester  H. 
Jacobs  and  Joseph  Hutchinson.  One  would  go  far  be- 
fore finding  more  representative  or  more  public-spirited 
bodies  of  citizens,  or  more  able  exponents  of  the  law. 
The  labors  of  the  several  committees  resulted  in  what 


Commonwealth  Club  Bills  161 

may  in  a  broad  way  be  regarded  as  two  sets  of  bills 
being  prepared. 

The  first,  known  as  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills, 
were  sixty-five  in  number,  and  were  introduced  in  the 
Senate  by  Campbell,  and  in  the  Assembly  by  Butler. 
The  second  set  was  known  as  the  Bar  Association  bills. 
They  were  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Burnett.  They 
were  nine  in  number,  and  while  apparently  covering  much 
of  the  ground  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills,  were  in 
no  respects  so  complete  as  to  method  or  detail.  The 
Bar  Association  bills  pin-pricked  an  abuse;  the  Com- 
monwealth Club  bills  drove  the  knife  in  deep. 

The  sixty-five  Commonwealth  Club  bills  were  readily 
divided  into  three  groups,  those  dealing  with  Grand 
Juries  and  indictments,  with  trial  juries  and  verdicts,  and 
with  appeals  to  the  higher  courts. 

The  general  purpose  of  the  measures  dealing  with 
Grand  Juries  was  to  make  those  bodies  purely  accusatory, 
to  make  their  findings  conclusive  and  not  subject  to  at- 
tack. The  basis  of  the  proposed  amendments  and  -addi- 
tions to  the  laws  governing  Grand  Juries  was  that  Grand 
Juries  are  primarily  required  to  investigate  secret  of- 
fenses, and  should  be  regarded  as  purely  accusatory 
bodies.  On  this  theory  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills 
made  the  indictment  of  a  Grand  Jury  as  binding  as  the 
action  of  a  committing  magistrate  who  holds  a  defend- 
ant to  answer.  Had  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  be- 
come laws  there  would  have  been  no  more  placing  of 
Grand  Jurors  on  trial  for  having  found  indictments 
against  persons  able  to  employ  crafty  criminal  lawyers. 

But  lest  the  defendant  under  investigation  might  be 


162  Commonwealth  Club  Bills 

wronged,  the  Commonwealth  Club  measures  so  amended 
the  codes  that  a  Grand  Juror  in  any  way  biased  against 
the  defendant  was  required  to  absent  himself  from  the 
Grand  Jury  room  when  the  defendant's  case  was  under 
consideration.  Under  the  proposed  laws  each  Grand 
Juror  was  required  to  take  oath  "not  to  participate  in 
the  inquiry  as  to  any  matter  or  affecting  any  person  as 
to  which  or  whom  he  is  biased  or  could  not  vote  freely 
either  way  that  the  evidence  presented  would  in  justice 
require  him  to  vote." 

The  Commonwealth  Club  amendments  regarding 
trial  juries  dealt  with  the  problem  in  the  same  broad 
spirit.  The  chief  object  sought  was  to  avoid  the  trying 
of  citizens  called  for  jury  service.73  The  proposed  laws 
obviated  this  by  leaving  it  with  the  Judge  to  determine 
the  qualifications  of  the  juror,  that  is  to  say,  the  examina- 
tion of  jurors  in  criminal  cases  was  to  have  been  taken 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  lawyers  and  required  of  the 
Judge.  To  compensate  the  defendant  for  whatever  sub- 
stantial disadvantage  he  might  suffer,  the  number  of  his 
peremptory  challenges  was  materially  increased. 

To  prevent  the  setting  aside  of  judgments  on  trifling 
technicalities,  the  proposed  amendments  provided  that 
the  Judge  should  fix  the  legality  of  the  jury  panel  by 
general  order,  after  which  challenges  could  not  apply  to 
the  whole  panel,  although  they  still  held  as  to  individual 
jurors. 

One  of  the  most  important  of  the  provisions  regard- 


73  A  prominent  San  Francisco  attorney  told  the  writer  re- 
cently that  "the  criminal  lawyer  too  often  questions  a  talesman 
needlessly,  not  so  much  to  disqualify  him,  as  to  get  technical  error 
into  the  record." 


Commonwealth  Club  Bills  163 

ing  trial  jurors  was  that  the  reading  of  mere  newspaper 
reports  of  a  case  should  not  disqualify  a  trial  juror,  un- 
less it  were  shown  that  the  newspaper  article  purported 
to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  official  testimony. 

The  fact  that  under  the  present  law  the  term  "rea- 
sonable doubt"  is  not  given  legal  definition  paves  the 
way  for  frequent  miscarriages  of  justice.  The  Judge 
is  required  to  define  the  term  for  the  jury.  The  de- 
fendant may  take  exception  to  the  definition,  thus  pav- 
ing the  way  for  technical  defense  in  the  upper  Courts. 
The  Commonwealth  Club  bills  defined  "reasonable 
doubt"  to  be,  "that  state  of  the  case  which,  after  the 
entire  comparison  and  consideration  of  all  the  evidence 
in  the  cause,  leaves  the  minds  of  the  jurors  in  that  con- 
dition that  they  cannot  say  they  feel  an  abiding  convic- 
tion to  a  moral  certainty  of  the  truth  of  the  charge." 

Amendments  were  also  proposed  to  the  law  governing 
instructions  to  juries.  Under  the  present  rule,  each 
side  presents  a  long  list  of  instructions  for  the  Judge  to 
give  to  the  jury.  If  the  Judge  refuse  to  give  the  in- 
structions as  requested,  objections  to  his  refusal  can  be 
taken  and  made  basis  for  a  technical  defense. 73a  Under 
the  proposed  amendments  objection  could  be  made  only 
to  such  instructions  as  were  given,  not  to  those  which 
were  not  presented  to  the  jury. 

In  none  of  those  proposed  amendments  could  the  sub- 


73a  It  was  on  a  technicality  of  this  kind  that  the  District 
Court  of  Appeals  found  excuse  for  reversal  of  the  judgment  in  the 
case  of  Louis  Glass,  convicted  of  bribing  a  member  of  the  San 
Francisco  Board  of  Supervisors.  E.  J.  Zimmer,  the  auditor  of  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  Company,  of  which  Glass  was  an  official, 
refused  to  testify  at  Glass'  trial.  The  trial  court  refused  to  in- 
struct the  jury  to  disregard  the  refusal.  The  Appellate  Court  held 
this  to  be  a  fatal  error. 


164  Commonwealth  Club  Bills 

stantial  rights  of  the  defendant  be  said  to  be  encroached 
upon.  But  the  proposed  laws  did  clear  away  a  mass  of 
technicalities  which  has  kept  many  a  scamp  out  of  jail. 

The  proposed  amendments  dealing  with  appeals  in 
criminal  cases  aimed  at  prompt  judgment  and  sentence 
after  conviction,  prompt  appeal  and  conclusion  of  the 
case. 

To  this  end,  the  measures  provided  that  upon  con- 
viction the  defendant  must  be  sentenced  forthwith,  and 
if  appeals  were  taken,  taken  on  the  judgment.  Instead 
of  the  cumbersome  bill  of  exceptions,  which  required 
weeks  and  sometimes  months  to  prepare,  it  was  provided 
that  the  entire  testimony  given  at  the  trial,  together  with 
the  complete  minutes  of  the  proceedings,  should  be  sent 
to  the  higher  tribunal.  This  would  place  before  the  Ap- 
pellate and  Supreme  Courts  all  the  facts  and  testimony 
-which  the  Lower  Court  had  considered.  This  feature 
of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  was  also  covered  by  the 
measures  which  had  been  prepared  by  the  Bar  Associa- 
tion. 

Under  the  proposed  Commonwealth  Club  amend- 
ments, the  defendant  was  not  permitted  to  appeal  on 
questions  referring  to  the  trial  jury  panels  or  the  Grand 
Jury,  nor  on  any  error  not  affecting  his  substantial 
rights.  Error  in  an  immaterial  issue,  or  of  not  sufficient 
importance  to  affect  the  substantial  rights  of  the  defend- 
ant, was  not,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Commonwealth 
Club  bills,  to  be  held  ground  for  reversal. 

"We  believe,"  said  the  Committee  which  drew  up  the 
Commonwealth  Club  bills,  "that  what  we  have  proposed 
is  in  no  way  revolutionary  and  deprives  the  accused 


Commonwealth  Club  Bills  165 

person  of  no  substantial  right.  The  amendments  pro- 
posed are  merely  designed  to  make  the  present  law  more 
effective,  to  relieve  the  Courts  from  the  necessity  of  con- 
sidering trivial  matters  and  to  aid  in  determining 
more  promptly  whether  a  person  accused  of  crime  is 
innocent  or  guilty." 

The  bills  as  introduced  in  the  Assembly  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee.  In  the 
Senate,  the  bills  went  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. 

The  promoters  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  made 
the  mistake  of  treating  the  machine  Senators  and  As- 
semblymen as  men  who  could  be  won  over  with  reason 
and  plain  statement.  Instead  of  fighting  for  their  bills 
and  demanding  their  passage,  the  agents  of  the  club 
v/ere  willing  to  listen  courteously  to  suggestions  from 
tricksters  intent  upon  the  defeat  of  the  measures,  who 
were  only  playing  for  time. 

Carroll  Cook  was  at  Sacramento  lobbying  against 
the  bills,  as  were  others  of  that  gentleman's  view  of 
affairs.  Cook  actually  appeared  before  the  Assembly 
Judiciary  Committee  on  invitation  of  one  of  its  mem- 
bers. The  courtesy  shown  him  by  Grove  L.  Johnson, 
chairman  of  the  Committee,  was  touching  or  nauseating, 
as  one  might  view  it.  Johnson,  who  was  in  effect  the 
Committee,  took  occasion  on  the  day  of  Cook's  appear- 
ance to  denounce  the  measures  as  revolutionary,  uncon- 
stitutional, vicious. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  sixty-three  of  the  sixty- 
five  bills  as  introduced  in  the  Assembly  never  got  be- 
yond Johnson's  Committee.  They  died  right  there.  The 


1 66  Commonwealth  Club  Bills 

two  exceptions  got  out  of  the  Committee  in  the  closing 
days  of  the  session,  one  on  March  10th,  the  other  on 
March  20th.  They  were  reported  out  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  they  do  pass.  It  was  then  too  late  to 
take  any  action  on  them.  They  died  on  the  Assembly 
file. 

Those  who  were  making  a  fight  for  the  measures  were 
kept  running  between  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
Assembly  and  that  of  the  Senate.  The  Senate  Committee, 
while  a  majority  of  its  members  were  against  the  ma- 
chine, was  led  by  men  who  were  not  at  all  in  sympathy 
with  any  plan  that  was  calculated  to  clear  away  legal 
cobwebs.  On  the  pretext  that  the  reforms  proposed 
were  covered  by  the  Bar  Association  bills,  or  that  the 
measures  were  duplicated  by  other  bills,  or  that  they 
were  loosely  drawn,  on  any  pretext,  in  fact,  the  Senate 
Committee  recommended  that  fifty-two  of  the  sixty-five 
measures  be  withdrawn.  And  they  were  withdrawn. 
Of  the  thirteen  remaining,  seven  stuck  in  the  Commit- 
tee, died  there;  five,  just  before  the  session  closed,  were 
referred  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation 
that  they  do  not  pass.  They  didn't.  Of  the  sixty-five 
bills,  the  Senate  Committee  gave  only  one  favorable 
recommendation.  This  lone  recipient  of  Committee  ap- 
proval got  back  to  the  Senate  on  March  5th.  It  died 
on  the  files. 

Such  was  the  fate  of  the  measures  prepared  under 
the  direction  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  for  reform  of 
the  methods  of  indictment,  trial  and  appeal  in  criminal 
cases.  The  Bar  Association  bills  received  somewhat  bet- 
ter treatment. 


Commonwealth  Club  Bills  167 

Of  the  nine  so-called  Bar  Association  bills,  eight 
passed  the  Senate ;  the  other  died  in  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee.  Of  the  eight  which  got  through  the  Senate, 
two  were  defeated  in  the  Assembly,  while  six  passed 
that  body  and  went  to  the  Governor. 

Four  of  the  six  Bar  Association  bills  which  passed 
dealt  with  the  repeal  of  those  sections  of  the  code  which 
provide  for  bills  of  exceptions  in  criminal  cases  and 
substituted  the  plan,  described  in  considering  the  Com- 
monwealth Club  bills,  of  providing  the  higher  Court 
with  complete  record  of  the  testimony  and  the  proceed- 
ings in  the  trial  Court. 

One  of  the  two  remaining  measures  requires  sen- 
tence to  be  imposed  upon  a  convicted  felon  in  not  less 
than  two  nor  more  than  five  days  after  the  verdict  or 
plea  of  guilty,  with  the  right  reserved  for  the  Court 
of  extending  the  time  to  ten  days.  The  sixth  measure 
defines  "a  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment." 

Such  was  the  outcome  of  the  effort  made  by 
reputable  lawyers  and  public  spirited  laymen  to  eliminate 
quackery  from  the  practice  of  the  criminal  law.  But 
measures  calculated  to  make  the  practice  of  the  criminal 
law  even  more  involved  and  technical  than  it  is  were 
granted  more  consideration.  Many  of  them  passed  both 
houses.  How  they  were  passed  and  what  they  are  will 
be  considered  in  another  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
How  THE  CHANGE  OF  VENUE  BILL  WAS  PASSED. 

Slipped  Through  the  Assembly  Without  Serious  Opposi- 
tion in  Closing  Days  of  the  Session — Passed  by 
Trick  in  the  Senate  Although  a  Majority  of  That 
Body  Were  Opposed  to.  Its  Passage— Typical  Case 
of  Machine  "Generalship." 

Given  the  presiding  officers  of  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly and  the  appointment  of  the  Committees  of  both 
bodies,  the  machine  minority  in  the  Legislature  had  com- 
paratively little  difficulty  in  preventing  the  passage  of 
desirable  measures.  Thus,  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills 
to  simplify  and  expedite  proceedings  in  criminal  cases, 
or,  if  you  like,  to  prevent  quackery  in  the  practice  of  the 
criminal  law,  were,  by  clever  manipulation,  defeated,  al- 
though if  fairly  presented  to  Senate  and  Assembly  they 
undoubtedly  would  have  become  laws.74 


74  Black's  Senate  bill,  1,144,  came  very  near  being  defeated 
in  the  Assembly  by  similar  "good  generalship."  The  measui-e 
in  effect  prohibits  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  within  a  mile 
and  a  half  of  Stanford  University.  Assemblyman  Bohnett  was  in 
charge  of  the  bill. 

Bohnett,  the  day  that  the  bill  was  to  come  up,  was  called 
from  the  room  to  attend  a  committee  meeting.  Immediately  did 
the  Assembly  show  astonishing  activity  in  consideration  of  the 
file.  So  fast  did  they  go  that  .the  Stanford  bill  seemed  destined 
to  be  reached  while  Bohnett  was  out  of  the  room.  Had  it  been 
reached  with  Bohnett  away  it  could  have  been  dropped  to  the 
bottom  of  the  file,  where  it  would  have  been  lost,  so  far  as  the 
session  of  the  Legislature  of  1909  was  concerned. 

Charles  R.  Detrick,  of  Palo  Alto,  happened  to  go  to  the  As- 
sembly chamber  at  this  critical  moment  and  took  in  the  situa- 
tion at  a  glance.  He  accordingly  hunted  up  Bohnett,  who  got 
back  to  the  Assembly  chamber  before  the  bill  could  be  reached 
on  file.  For  once  "good  generalship"  had  failed  at  the  legislative 
session  of  1909. 


Change  of  Venue  Bill       169 

But  when  it  came  to  passing  vicious  measures  in  the 
face  of  the  opposition  of  the  unorganized  majority  of 
both  Houses,  the  machine  had  a  harder  job  on  its  hands. 
A  majority  vote  of  each  House  is  required  for  the  pass- 
age of  a  measure.  To  get  through  its  bills,  then,  the 
machine  had  to  create  a  situation  in  which  vicious  meas- 
ures could  be  rushed  through  without  the  unorganized 
reformers  knowing  what  was  being  done.  By  pre- 
venting action  on  a  large  majority  of  the  measures  pend- 
ing before  the  Legislature  until  the  end  of  the  session, 
such  a  situation  was  created.  In  the  confusion  of  the 
closing  days  of  the  session,  not  only  were  good  bills 
denied  passage,  but  vicious  bills,  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  a  majority  of  the  Legislature,  were  passed.  Some 
normally  anti-machine  members  in  such  a  situation  be- 
come worn  out,  get  discouraged  and  vote  for  machine 
policies  to  secure  machine  support  for  measures,  the 
passage  of  which  their  constituents  at  home  are  de- 
manding. Others,  in  the  confusion  of  a  whirlwind  close 
of  the  session,  vote  for  measures  which  they  have  no 
time  to  read,  and  which  they  cannot  understand.  Thus, 
even  with  a  majority  of  Senate  and  Assembly  against 
machine  policies,  the  clever  machine  leaders  often  slip 
through  measures  which  could  not  be  passed  early  in 
the  session,  when  the  members  have  opportunity  to 
study  the  bills  upon  which  they  are  called  upon  to  act, 
and  before  the  ranks  of  the  reform  element  have  been 
broken.  &m 

eEut&GS 

This  was  very  well  illustrated  at  the  Session  of  1909 


170  Change  of  Venue  Bill 

by  the  passage  of  the  so-called  Change  of  Venue  bill.74a 
This  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Assembly  by  Grove 
L.  Johnson.  Under  its  provisions  a  person  charged  with 
crime  would  have  been  permitted  upon  his  whim  or 
caprice  to  allege  bias  and  disqualify  the  Judge  before 
whom  he  was  to  be  tried.  The  Legislature  of  1907  was 
admittedly  controlled  by  the  machine,  but  even  the  Legis- 
lature of  1907  did  not  dare  pass  the  Change  of  Venue 
bill.  The  reform  Legislature  of  1909,  however,  did  pass 
it.  The  manner  in  which  it  was  passed  is  a  lesson  in 
machine  methods.  To  the  credit  of  Governor  Gillett  let 
it  be  said,  however,  that  he  vetoed  the  measure.75 

Grove  L.  Johnson  having  introduced  the  bill,  it  was 
referred  to  Johnson's  committee,  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee of  the  Assembly.  The  Committee  held  it  until  Feb- 
ruary 5,  when  it  was  referred  back  to  the  Assembly  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  "do  pass."  On  March  13, 
eleven  days  before  adjournment,  it  passed  the  Assembly, 
by  a  vote  of  42  to  15,  41  votes  being  required  for  its 
passage.  Assemblymen  like  Drew,  Telfer,  Wilson  and 
Stuckenbruck,  men  who  fought  the  machine  and  ma- 
chine policies  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 


74a  In  1907,  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  was  slipped  through  the 
Assembly,  but  in  a  form  not  to  affect  the  San  Francisco  graft 
cases.  In  the  Senate,  however,  it  was  amended  to  apply  to  Ruef, 
Schmitz  and  their  associates.  The  exposure  of  this  turn  raised 
such  a  storm  that  the  bill  was  not  brought  to  vote.  However,  on 
the  night  before  adjournment,  the  measure  was  slipped  through  the 
Senate  as  an  amendment  tacked  on  another  bill.  But  the  trick 
was  discovered  in  the  Assembly  and  defeated. 

75  Governor  Gillett's  reasons  for  vetoing  the  bill  are  set  forth 
in  footnote  1,  Chapter  I. 


Change  of  Venue  Bill       171 

session,  voted  for  the  bill.  The  negative  vote  of  any 
two  of  them  would  have  defeated  it.76 

The  passage  in  the  Assembly  of  an  important  re- 
form measure  as  late  as  March  13,  would  have  meant 
its  defeat  in  the  Senate.  Though  in  the  majority  the  anti- 
machine  Senators  could  not  have  forced  a  reform  meas- 
ure through  the  machine-controlled  committees,  ma- 
chine-controlled even  when  a  majority  of  a  committee 
was  anti-machine.77  Measures  of  the  Change  of  Venue 
bill  stamp,  however,  had  a  clear  way.  The  Change  of 
Venue  bill  was  on  March  15  referred  to  the  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee.  On  March  16,  twenty- four  hours 
after,  the  Committee  returned  the  bill  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  do  pass.  On  March  19,  with  twenty- 
two  Senators  opposed  to  its  passage,  and  eighteen  favor- 
ing it,  with  twenty-one  votes  necessary  for  its  passage, 
the  bill  passed  the  Senate.  This  apparently  impossible 
feat  was,  in  the  last  two  weeks  of  the  session,  a  com- 
paratively easy  task  for  the  machine. 

To  begin  with,  Senator  Black,  who  opposed  the  bill, 
was  ill  at  his  home  at  Palo  Alto.  This  left  twenty-one 
Senators  against  the  measure  and  eighteen  for.  The 
line-up  was  as  follows : 


76  The    Assembly    vote    on    the    change    of    venue    bill    was    as 
follows: 

For  the  Change  of  Venue  bill— Barndollar,  Beatty,  Black,  Cat- 
tell,  Coghlan,  Collier,  Collum,  Cronin,  Drew,  Feeley,  Flint,  Gibbons, 
Griffiths,  Hammon,  Hans,  Hawk,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Holm- 
quist,  Johnson  of  Sacramento,  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Juilliard, 
Lightner,  Macauley,  Maher,  McClellan,  McManus,  Melrose,  Men- 
denhall,  Moore,  Mott,  Pugh,  Rech,  Sehmitt,  Silver,  Stuckenbruck, 
Telfer,  Transue,  Wagner,  Wheelan,  and  Wilson — 42. 

Against  the  Change  of  Venue  bill — Baxter,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Cal- 
lan,  Cogswell,  Dean,  Gerdes,  Gillis,  Kehoe,  Otis,  Polsley,  Preston, 
Sackett,  Whitney,  and  Young— 15. 

77  The    Senate    Judiciary    Committee    for    example. 


172       Change  of  Venue  Bill 

For  the  Change  of  Venue  bill — Anthony,  Bates,  Bills, 
Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Hurd,  Leavitt,  Martinelli,  Mc- 
Cartney, Price,  Reily,  Savage,  Weed,  Welch,  Willis, 
Wolfe,'  Wright— 18. 

Against  the  Change  of  Venue  bill — Bell,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Burnett,76*  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright, 
Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Holohan,  Lewis,  Kennedy, 
Miller,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  Walker — 21. 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  outlook  for  the  passage  of  the 
Change  of  Venue  bill  in  the  Senate  was  not  good.  The 
machine,  however,  planned  to  pass  the  bill  on  March  19. 

The  machine  leaders  went  at  the  job  systematically. 
When  the  Senators  took  their  seats  that  Friday  morning, 
they  found  that  at  Senator  Bates'  request,  Assembly  Bill 
6  (the  Change  of  Venue  bill)  had  been  put  on  the 
Special  Urgency  File.  The  Special  Urgency  File  was 
to  be  considered  at  8  o'clock  Friday  evening.  Senator 
Bates  stated  in  an  interview  that  he  had  placed  Assem- 
bly Bill  No.  6  on  the  Special  Urgency  File  "at  the  re- 
quest of  a  fellow  Senator."  Who  the  fellow  Senator 
was,  Bates  refused  to  say.  Bates  insisted,  however,  that 
he  knew  nothing  about  Assembly  Bill  No.  6,  and  could 
give  no  reason  why  it  should  be  made  a  matter  of  "special 
urgency."  Senator  Bates  has  since  the  Legislature  ad- 
journed been  given  a  position  of  trust  in  the  United 
States  Mint. 

With  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  on  the  Special  Ur- 
gency File,  the  next  step  was  to  get  it  considered  at  the 


76a   The   Senators   whose   names   are   printed   in   italics   became 
involved  in  the  confusion  which  led  to  the  passage  of  the  measure. 


Change  of  Venue  Bill       173 

moment  most  favorable  for  machine  purposes.  Along 
about  1 1  o'clock  in  the  forenoon — the  reader  should  keep 
in  mind  that  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  Senate's  work 
the  Special  Urgency  File  would  not  have  been  considered 
until  8  o'clock  that  evening — Senator  Wolfe  moved  that 
the  Special  Urgency  File  be  taken  up  out  of  order.  But 
before  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  could  be  reached,  Sen- 
ator Wright,  who  favored  the  passage  of  the  measure, 
was  found  to  be  absent  from  the  Senate  chamber.  On 
Senator  McCartney's  motion,  the  Change  of  Venue  bill 
was  temporarily  passed  on  file.  With  the  constant  com- 
ing and  going  of  Senators,  there  was  no  time  while  the 
file  was  under  consideration,  that  the  eighteen  Senators 
counted  on  to  vote  in  a  solid  block  for  the  bill,  were 
all  present.  The  Senate  concluded  consideration  of  the 
Special  Urgency  File,  and  still  the  Change  of  Venue  bill 
had  not  been  taken  up.  The  Senate  then  took  up  the 
second  reading  of  Assembly  bills,  and  then  the  Special 
File  of  Appropriation  bills.  A  communication  from  Dr. 
Howard  Black  and  Dr.  Harry  D.  Reynolds  was  read 
setting  forth  that  Senator  Black  was  too  ill  to  leave 
Palo  Alto.  Bills  were  passed  and  bills  were  withdrawn. 
Senator  Strobridge  reported  that  Senate  Bill  No.  862 
had  been  correctly  engrossed.  And  through  it  all  the 
machine  was  watching  for  the  favorable  moment  to  force 
the  passage  of  the  Change  of  Venue  bill. 

The  moment  came  just  before  noon.  Like  the  snap 
of  a  trap  Leavitt  asked  for  unanimous  consent  to  take 
up  Assembly  Bill  No.  6,  out  of  order.  The  anti-machine 
Senators  are  never  guilty  of  discourteous  treatment  of 
a  fellow  Senator.  They  granted  the  request. 


174       Change  of  Venue  Bill 

Senator  Wright  vouched  for  the  bill.  He  stated  that 
it  was  a  good  bill  and  should  be  made  a  law.  Senator 
Wolfe  spoke  for  it,  in  fact  led  the  debate  to  secure  its 
passage.  On  the  other  hand,  Senator  Boynton  very 
pointedly  told  Senator  Wright  that  the  bill  was  not  a 
good  measure  and  should  not  be  passed.  "Judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  tell  me,"  said  Boynton,  "that  this  is 
a  bad  bill." 

Senator  Cutten  made  a  strong  speech  against  the 
bill,  which  he  denounced  as  bad  in  principle.  Holohan 
stated  that  if  the  measure  became  a  law  it  would  give  a 
bunco  steerer  a  chance  to  disqualify  every  decent  Judge 
in  the  State.  Roseberry  denounced  the  measure  as 
vicious. 

When  the  vote  was  taken,  every  Senator  who  sup- 
ported it  was  in  his  seat,  but  Burnett,  Estudillo  and  Rush 
were  absent.  This  would  have  made  the  vote  18  to  18, 
the  backers  of  the  measure  requiring  three  more  affirm- 
ative votes  for  its  passage.  But  Miller  and  Lewis  were 
led  to  vote  for  the  measure,  which  made  20  votes  for 
the  bill  and  16  against  it.  At  this  point  the  bill  lacked 
one  vote  of  passage.  Estudillo  was,  however,  brought 
in  under  call  of  the  Senate,  and  under  what  amounted  to 
misrepresentation,  voted  for  the  measure.  This  passed 
the  bill  by  a  vote  of  21  to  18.  Boynton  changed  his  vote 
from  no  to  aye,  to  give  notice  that  on  the  next  legislative 
day  he  would  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
bill  had  been  passed.  But  before  he  could  give  notice 
the  Senate  took  its  noon  recess.  Boynton  under  the 
rules  had  all  day  in  which  to  notify  the  Senate  of  his 
intention,  but  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  he  told  the 


Change  of  Venue  Bill       175 

clerk  at  the  desk  not  to  send  the  bill  to  the  Assembly 
for  he  would  as  soon  as  the  Senate  re-convened,  give 
notice  of  his  motion  to  reconsider. 

Nevertheless,  when  the  Senate  reconvened,  Boynton 
found  that  the  bill  had  been  rushed  over  to  the  Assembly, 
"to  save  time,"  according  to  the  excuse  given. 

Senator  Boynton  insisted  that  the  bill  be  returned 
from  the  Assembly.  Wolfe  asked  Boynton  "as  a  matter 
of  Senatorial  courtesy,"  to  permit  the  vote  on  the  bill 
to  be  taken  on  a  motion  to  have  it  returned  from  the 
Assembly.  This  request  was  so  ludicrous,  in  view  of  the 
treatment  that  had  been  accorded  Boynton,  that  it  pro- 
voked a  smile.  Boynton  refused  to  be  "courteous,"  the 
bill  was  returned  from  the  Assembly  and  regularly  recon- 
sidered the  next  day. 

With  21  votes  against  the  measure,  there  seemed 
little  doubt  that  it  would  be  reconsidered  and  defeated. 
Twenty-one  votes  were  necessary  for  reconsideration. 
Lewis  and  Miller  had  thought  better  of  their  vote  of 
Friday  and  were  prepared  to  vote  against  the  bill.  Estu- 
dillo,  understanding  the  measure  thoroughly,  was  anx- 
ious to  set  himself  right  in  the  record  by  voting  against 
it.  These,  with  Burnett  and  Rush,  gave  twenty-one 
votes,  enough  to  force  reconsideration  and  to  defeat  the 
bill. 

But  there  was  a  weak  link  in  the  combination, — 
Kennedy.  Senator  Kennedy  voted  throughout  the  ses- 
sion consistently  with  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  element,  but  he 
voted  against  the  Change  of  Venue  bill.  When  Satur- 
day morning  came,  however,  Kennedy  could  not  be 
found. 


176       Change  of  Venue  Bill 

When  reconsideration  of  the  bill  came  up,  Burnett 
and  Rush  were  out  in  the  hallway.  Miller  and  Lewis 
voted  to  reconsider,  which  made  the  vote  eighteen  to 
eighteen.  Twenty-one  votes  were  necessary  for  recon- 
sideration. With  Kennedy,  Burnett  and  Rush,  recon- 
sideration could  be  forced  and  the  bill  defeated.  The 
only  way  the  absent  Senators  could  be  reached  was 
through  a  call  of  the  Senate,  which  required  a  majority 
vote  of  those  present.  A  motion  for  a  call  of  the  Senate 
was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  eighteen  to  eighteen.78 

This  was  the  real  test  vote  on  the  Change  of  Venue 
bill.  It  will  be  seen  that  Miller  and  Lewis  and  Estu- 
dillo,  who  had  voted  for  the  bill  the  day  before,  voted 
for  a  call  of  the  Senate.  They  would,  on  reconsideration, 
have  voted  against  the  bill,  and  its  passage  on  recon- 
sideration would  have  been  impossible.  Had  Kennedy 
or  Rush  or  Burnett  been  present,  the  motion  for  a  call 
of  the  Senate  would  have  prevailed,  the  vote  on  the 
Change  of  Venue  bill  been  reconsidered,  and  the  measure 
defeated. 

Half  an  hour  later,  when  Kennedy's  vote  was  neces- 
sary to  enable  the  machine  to  continue  the  deadlock  on 
the  Direct  Primary  bill,  Kennedy  turned  up  to  do  his 
part  in  that  not  very  creditable  performance. 

In  this  way  did  the  machine  element  secure  the  pass- 


78  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

For  the  call  of  the  Senate— Bell,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Caminetti, 
Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Holohan,  Lewis, 
Miller,  Roseberry,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker 
—18.  ;>  ; 

Against  the  call  of  the  Senate— Anthony,  Bates,  Bills,  Finn, 
Hare,  Hartman,  Kurd,  Leavitt,  Martinelli,  McCartney,  Price,  Reily, 
Savage,  Weed,  Welch,  Willis,  Wolfe,  Wright— 18. 


Change  of  Venue  Bill  177 

age  of  the  Change  of  Venue  bill.  It  was  a  question  of 
good  generalship,  or,  if  you  like,  trickery.  Perhaps 
trickery  is  the  better  name  for  it. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
PASSAGE  OF  THE  WHEELAN  BILLS. 

Measures  Extended  Abuses  Which  the  Commonwealth 
Club  Bills  Had  Been  Drawn  to  Prevent — Went 
Through  Both  Houses  Without  the  Members  Thor- 
oughly Understanding  Their  Significance. 

The  so-called  Wheelan  bills  were  passed  in  much  the 
same  way  as  was  the  Change  of  Venue  bill.  These 
measures  will  perhaps  be  better  understood  in  comparison 
with  certain  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  which  were 
considered  in  a  previous  chapter. 

Among  the  Commonwealth  bills  was  one  which  de- 
nied a  defendant  under  indictment  a  copy  of  the  testi- 
mony taken  in  the  Grand  Jury  room.  The  measure  was 
drawn  on  the  theory  that  Grand  Juries  deal  principally 
with  secret  offenses,  and  that  the  testimony  had  better 
be  brought  out  before  the  trial  Court.  One  object  of 
the  proposed  law  was  to  prevent  the  defendant  giving 
out  testimony  with  the  deliberate  object  of  prejudicing 
the  entire  community  against  him,  and  thus  increasing 
the  difficulty  of  getting  petty  juries  to  try  him. 

Furthermore,  there  are  instances,  as  when  Abe  Ruef 
was  before  the  Grand  Jury  at  San  Francisco,  when  the 
ends  of  justice  require  that  the  testimony  given  shall  be 
kept  secret.  But,  in  spite  of  these  and  other  considera- 
tions, the  measure  in  question  was  allowed  to  die  in 
Committee, 


Wheelan  Bills  179 

On  the  other  hand  two  bills  requiring  that  transcript 
of  such  testimony  be  given  the  defendant  passed  both 
Senate  and  Assembly.  They  were  introduced  by  Whee- 
lan of  San  Francisco. 

Section  925  of  the  Penal  Code,  as  it  stood  up  to  the 
time  of  the  opening  of  the  session,  provided  that  "the 
Grand  Jury  whenever  criminal  causes  are  being  inves- 
tigated before  them,  on  demand  of  the  District  Attorney 
must  appoint  a  competent  stenographic  reporter  to  be 
sworn  and  to  report  the  testimony  that  may  be  given  in 
such  causes  in  shorthand,  and  reduce  the  same  upon 
request  of  the  District  Attorney  to  long  hand  or  type- 
writing." It  was  thus  left  with  the  District  Attorney  to 
say  whether  the  stenographic  reporter  should  be  present, 
and  whether  his  notes  should  be  transcribed. 

The  first  of  the  Wheelan  bills,  Assembly  bill  221, 79 
amended  the  law  by  cutting  out  the  words  in  italics  "on 
demand  of  the  District  Attorney"  and  "upon  request  of 
the  District  Attorney,"  making  it  mandatory  upon  the 
Grand  Jury  to  have  the  reporter  in  attendance. 

Further  on  in  the  section  and  in  Assembly  bill  222,79 
it  was  provided  that  a  true  copy  of  the  testimony  thus 
taken  should  be  given  the  defendant  at  the  time  of  his 
arraignment. 

These  two  measures  passed  both  Senate  and  As- 
sembly. 

Assembly  bill  223, 79  also  introduced  by  Wheelan,  pro- 
vided another  cause  for  the  setting  aside  of  an  indict- 
ment by  the  Court  in  which  the  defendant  is  arraigned, 

79  Governor  Gillett  signed  Assembly  bills  Nos.  221  and  222. 
iftey  are  now  the  law  of  the  State.  Assembly  bill  No.  223  he  did 
not  sign.  It  did  not,  therefore,  become  a  law. 


i8o  Wheelan  Bills 

upon  such  defendant's  motion.  The  Commonwealth  bills 
aimed  to  prevent  technical  attacks  upon  indictments. 
The  third  of  the  Wheelan  bills— No.  223— opened  the 
way  for  further  technical  attacks,  by  providing  that  the 
Court  must  set  aside  the  indictment  "when  it  appears 
from  the  testimony  taken  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  the 
defendant  has  been  indicted  upon  a  criminal  charge  with- 
out reasonable  or  probable  cause." 

This  measure  passed  both  Houses.  It  opened  the 
way  for  review  before  the  Court  of  the  testimony  taken 
in  the  Grand  Jury  room,  and  endless  technical  objections, 
all  of  which  by  clever  counsel  can  be  employed  to  delay 
the  case  being  brought  before  a  trial  jury,  and  in  the 
end  perhaps  wear  out  the  prosecution,  thus  preventing 
the  case  being  tried  on  its  merits.  With  that  section  in 
the  law  two  years  ago,  it  is  a  question  whether  the  de- 
fendants in  the  graft  prosecution  at  San  Francisco  would 
ever  have  been  brought  to  trial. 

It  will  be  seen  that  while  the  Commonwealth  Club 
bills  aimed  to  decrease  the  opportunities  for  technical 
defense  of  men  charged  with  crime,  and  thus  permit  the 
cases  being  tried  on  their  merits,  the  Wheelan  bills  in- 
creased opportunity  for  technical  objection. 

The  history  of  the  passage  of  the  Wheelan  bills  is 
practically  the  same  in  each  instance. 

The  three  bills  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Wheelan  on 
January  llth,  and  referred  to  the  Assembly  Judiciary 
Committee.  The  Committee,  which  pigeon-holed  sixty- 
three  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills,  and  reported  back 
the  two  remaining  too  late  for  passage,  had  better  treat- 
ment in  store  for  the  Wheelan  measures,  They  were 


Wheelan  Bills  181 

reported  back  to  the  Assembly  on  March  6th,  at  a  time 
when  the  Assembly  was  fairly  swamped  with  pending 
measures.  On  March  17th,  in  the  midst  of  a  mass  of 
legislation,  they  were  slipped  through  the  Assembly 
without  many  of  the  members  apparently  knowing  what 
they  were.  The  Assembly  Journal  of  that  date  shows 
that  such  men  as  Bohnett,  Callan,  Cattell,  Cogswell, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  Gibbons,  Gillis,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Hinkle, 
Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Mendenhall,  Pols- 
ley,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Whitney,  Wilson  and  Wyllie, 
who  ordinarily  voted  for  good  measures  and  against  bad 
ones,  voted  for  the  Wheelan  bills. 

With  the  exception  of  Bill  No.  223,  not  one  vote  was 
cast  against  the  measures.  The  vote  on  Bill  No.  223 
was  the  last  taken.  Gillis,  who  had  voted  for  the  two 
others,  appears  to  have  awakened  to  the  fact  that  some- 
thing was  wrong.  At  any  rate,  he  voted  against  Bill  223. 

His  was  the  only  vote  cast  against  any  of  the  three 
bills  in  the  lower  House.  They  appear  to  have  gone 
through  the  Assembly  without  thorough  appreciation  of 
their  significance.  At  any  rate,  there  were  members 
enough  present,  who  were  usually  against  bad  measures, 
to  have  prevented  the  Wheelan  bills  securing  the  forty- 
one  votes  necessary  for  their  passage. 

A  reform  measure  passing  the  Assembly  on  March 
17th  would  have  had  no  chance  whatever  in  the  Senate. 
The  Wheelan  bills  were  more  fortunate. 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  before  which  the 
Commonwealth  Club  bills  had  dragged  along  for  weeks, 
received  the  Wheelan  bills  on  March  17th,  the  day  they 
passed  the  Assembly,  and  the  same  day,  March  17th,  re- 


182  Wheelan  Bills 

ported  them  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  they  do  pass.  On  March  18th  the  measures 
were  read  the  second  time  in  the  Senate,  and  on  March 
20th,  three  days  after  they  had  passed  the  Assembly, 
the  Senate  passed  them. 

Such  is  the  difference  in  action  on  machine-favored 
bills  and  bills  which  the  machine  does  not  favor.  Inci- 
dentally, it  may  be  said  that  at  the  time  the  Wheelan 
bills  were  before  the  Senate,  the  machine  had  that  body 
tied  up  in  the  fight  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill. 

The  reform  element — at  the  mercy  of  the  Senate  or- 
ganization— was  compelled  to  devote  its  whole  attention 
to  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  The  machine  was  thus  left 
to  run  committees  and  Senate  at  its  own  free  will.  It 
was  an  admirable  situation  from  the  machine  standpoint. 

But  by  the  time  the  Wheelan  bills  had  been  hastened 
to  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  the  reform  Senators  ap- 
parently awoke  to  the  fact  that  some  sort  of  a  job  was 
on  the  way.  When  the  bills  came  up  for  final  passage, 
however,  the  anti-machine  Senators  were  apparently  as 
much  at  a  loss  concerning  them  as  the  anti-machine  As- 
semblymen had  been. 

Bill  number  221  came  up  first,  and  even  Senator  Bell, 
the  staunchest  opponent  of  bad  laws  of  them  all,  voted 
for  it.  With  Senator  Bell  voted  Caminetti,  Estudillo, 
Rush,  Thompson  and  Walker,  who  were  ordinarily 
against  the  passage  of  bad  bills.  As  the  measure  re- 
ceived but  twenty-three  votes,  any  three  of  these  by 
voting  no  could  have  defeated  it. 

Price,  who  had  voted  for  the  bill,  gave  notice,  at  the 
request  of  a  fellow  Senator,  that  on  the  next  legislative 


Wheelan  Bills  183 

day  he  would  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
bill  had  been  passed. 

Before  taking  up  Assembly  bill  222,  companion  bill 
to  221,  the  Senate  passed  three  measures  and  considered 
several  others.  By  the  time  Assembly  bill  222  was 
reached,  Senator  Bell  had  got  his  bearings,  and  voted 
against  it.  Caminetti  had  also  found  himself,  and 
although  Caminetti  voted  for  the  measure,  he  gave  notice 
that  on  the  next  legislative  day  he  would  move  for  its 
reconsideration. 

The  third  of  the  bills,  No.  223,  followed  222,  and 
Walker,  who  had  voted  for  the  two  other  bills,  voted 
"no."  The  bill  was  passed  by  twenty-three  votes,  Cutten 
voting  "aye"  for  the  purpose  of  giving  notice  to  re- 
consider. 

The  motions  to  reconsider  were  voted  upon  on  the 
afternoon  of  Monday,  March  22,  the  day  of  the  final 
fight  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill  in  both  Senate  and  As- 
sembly. Nobody  was  thinking  of  much  of  anything 
else  that  day.  In  every  instance  reconsideration  was 
denied.80  The  vote  by  which  they  had  passed  the  Senate 
stood . 


80  The  Assembly  history  of  March  23,  fails  to  record  that  the 
motions  to  reconsider  were  made  on  the  three  Wheelan  bills.  In 
an  article  concerning  these  bills  which  the  writer  prepared  for 
the  Sacramento  Bee,  governed  by  the  official  record  of  the  meas- 
ures, the  History  of  the  House  in  which  they  originated,  he  stated 
that  motions  for  their  reconsideration  were  not  made.  The  Senate 
Journal  of  March  22,  however,  pages  23  and  26,  shows  that  these 
motions  were  made,  and  in  all  three  cases  defeated. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  LOCAL  OPTION  BILL. 

Peculiar  Arrangement  by  Which  the  Bill  Was  Side- 
tracked in  the  Assembly — Stanton  Promised  That 
It  Should  Pass  the  Lower  House  if  It  Passed  the 
Senate — How  It  Was  Smothered  in  the  Upper  House. 

4 

Because  there  is  no  particular  reason  why  California 
should  not  have  a  Local  Option  law,  in  the  face  of  popu- 
lar demand  for  it,  a  large  number  of  very  worthy  citi- 
zens assumed  that  one  would  be  passed.  The  fact  seems 
to  have  been  lost  sight  of  that  the  tenderloin  element 
opposes  such  legislation,  and  that  the  management  of 
the  so-called  liquor  interests  organized  as  the  "Royal 
Arch,"  takes  a  shortsighted  view  of  Local  Option  pro- 
visions. The  machine  was  thus  interested.  Its  repre- 
sentatives in  Senate  and  Assembly  did  not  propose  that 
any  Local  Option  bill  should  pass.  So  the  Local  Option 
bill  was  smothered.  The  smothering  process  most  sug- 
gestively indicates  how  such  things  can  be  done. 

The  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Assembly  by 
Wyllie  and  in  the  Senate  by  Estudillo.  In  the  face  of 
the  popular  demand  for  the  passage  of  such  a  bill,  and 
the  exasperation  of  a  no  small  portion  of  the  voters  of  the 
State,  at  the  mistake — or  trick — by  which  in  1907  the  only 
measure  resembling  a  Local  Option  law  was  rubbed  off 
the  statute  books,  it  was  not  good  policy  to  fight  the  bill 


Local  Option  Bill  185 

in  the  open.     So  the  machine  proceeded  to  do  covertly 
what  would  have  been  "poor  politics"  to  do  openly.81 

The  same  bill  having  been  introduced  both  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  the  first  step  was  to  tie  up  either  the  As- 
sembly or  the  Senate  measure,  so  that  the  whole  crafty 
campaign  against  the  bill's  passage  could  be  confined 
to  one  House.  The  way  in  which  this  was  done  was  sim- 
plicity itself.  The  Wyllie  bill,  as  introduced  in  the  As- 
sembly was,  at  the  request  of  Speaker  Stanton,  held  up 
in  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals.  Most 
plausible  reason  was  given  for  this  course.  It  was 
pointed  out  that  since  the  Assembly  had  gone  on  record 
before  the  Senate  on  the  anti-gambling  bill,  on  women's 
suffrage 80a  and  other  "moral"  issues,  it  was  unfair  to 

81  Up  to  the  legislative  session  of  1907,  the  County  Government 
Act  provided  that  the  Supervisors  of  a  county  could  submit  any 
question— including  the  matter  of  regulating  the  liquor  traffic- 
to  the  voters  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  opinion  upon 
the  issue.  There  was,  however,  no  way  to  compel  the  Super- 
visors to  take  the  action  that  might  be  thus  decided  upon  by 
popular  vote.  The  Supervisors  could  act  upon  the  vote  or  ignore 
it,  as  they  saw  fit. 

The  Legislature  of  1907  transferred  the  County  Government 
Act  to  the  Codes.  For  some  reason,  either  by  intention  or  over- 
sight, the  section  which  permitted  Supervisors  to  submit  questions 
to  the  people  for  an  advisory  vote  was  omitted.  It  has  been  held 
that  this  action  of  the  Legislature  repealed  the  section  by  impli- 
cation. It  is  held,  therefore,  that  no  law  is  upon  the  Statute  books 
by  which  the  people  may  be  permitted  to  vote  even  in  an  advisory 
capacity  upon  any  question  of  police  regulation  or  public  policy. 

80a  A  fine  example  of  a  lightning  switch  of  plan  on  the  part 
of  the  machine  came  in  the  fight  on  the  Women's  Suffrage 
Amendment.  The  tenderloin  and  liquor  interests  in  general  are 
opposed  to  the  submission  of  this  amendment  to  the  people,  which 
means,  of  course,  that  the  machine  is  against  it.  To  submit  the 
amendment  to  the  people,  fifty-four  votes  are  required  in  the  As- 
sembly and  twenty- seven  in  the  Senate.  This  year,  the  program 
was  to  let  the  amendment  pass  the  Assembly  and  defeat  it  in 
the  Senate.  Assemblymen  were  allowed  to  pledge  themselves  to 
its  support  until  there  were  fifty-eight  Assemblymen  down  to 
vote  for  it.  Grove  L.  Johnson  had  introduced  the  measure  in  the 
Assembly,  and  its  adoption  by  that  body  seemed  assured. 

But  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  got  in  the  way  of 
Woman's  Suffrage  in  a  most  curious  manner.  When  the  passage 
of  this  anti-gambling  bill  became  a  certainty,  that  branch  of  the 
group  of  tenderloin  Senators  whose  interests  were  wrapped  up  in 


1 86  Local  Option  Bill 

compel  the  lower  House  to  go  on  record  before  the 
Senate  on  the  Local  Option  bill.  Speaker  Stanton  as- 
sured the  proponents  of  the  measure  that  if  it  passed  the 
Senate,  it  should  pass  the  Assembly. 

Stanton  accordingly  recognized  that  the  Assembly, 
given  an  opportunity,  would  pass  the  bill.  Had  it  passed 
the  Assembly  before  the  middle  of  February,  it  would 
unquestionably  have  passed  the  Senate.  But  the  pro- 
ponents of  the  measure  consented  to  the  plan  to  make 
the  Senate  act  first.  The  fight  for  the  passage  of  the 
bill  accordingly  took  place  in  the  Senate. 

Before  taking  up  the  Senate  measure  introduced  by 
Estudillo,  the  Wyllie  bill  may  as  well  be  disposed  of.  It 
was  introduced  in  the  Assembly  January  8th,  and  was 
sent  to  the  Committee  on  Public  Morals.  There  it  lay 

racetrack  gambling,  became  "very  sore."  In  their  disgruntlement 
they  decided  to  give  reform  full  swing,  and  put  the  Woman's  Suf- 
frage Amendment  through  the  Senate.  This  attitude  seriously 
alarmed  the  safe,  sane  and  respectable  leaders  of  the  machine, 
who  see  all  sorts  of  trouble  for  the  machine  if  women  are  given 
the  ballot.  So  to  prevent  its  tenderloin  associates  in  the  Senate 
doing  anything  rash,  the  machine  decided  rather  late  in  the  day 
to  defeat  the  amendment  in  the  Assembly. 

When  this  decision  was  reached,  and  the  order  to  carry  it  into 
effect  given,  the  machine  Assemblymen  who  had  agreed  to  vote 
for  the  amendment  coolly  forgot  their  pledges.  Instead  of  fifty- 
eight  votes,  only  thirty-nine  were  cast  for  the  amendment. 

Grove  L..  Johnson,  who  had  introduced  it,  and  who  pretended 
to  support  it,  agreed  to  move  for  its  reconsideration.  When  the 
hour  for  the  motion  for  reconsideration  came,  Johnson  huddled 
up  in  his  seat,  looking  neither  to  right  or  left,  let  the  opportunity 
pass. 

The  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  defeated  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment:  Barndollar,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Callan,  Cat- 
tell,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Collum,  Costar,  Cronin,  Drew,  Gibbons, 
Gillis,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Holmquist,  Hopkins,  Johnson  of 
Sacramento,  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Juilliard, 
Kehoe,  Maher,  Melrose,  Mendenhall,  Otis,  O'Neil,  Polsley,  Pulcifer, 
Sackett,  Silver,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Webber,  Wheelan,  Wilson, 
Wyllie,  Young— 39. 

Against  the  amendment:  Baxter,  Beardslee,  Beatty,  Beban, 
Collier,  Cullen,  Dean,  Feeley,  Flavelle,  Fleisher,  Flint,  Gerdes-, 
Greer,  Griffiths,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans,  Hawk,  Johnston  of 
Contra  Costa,  Leeds,  Lightner,  Macaulay,  McClellan,  McManus, 
Moore,  Mott,  Nelson,  Odom,  Preston,  Pugh,  Rech,  Rutherford, 
Schmitt,  Stanton,  Transue,  Wagner,  Whitney— 37. 


Local  Option  Bill  187 

until  March  13th,  two  months  and  five  days,  when  the 
proponents  of  the  measure,  realizing  that  they  were  be- 
ing tricked,  made  their  protest  so  loud  that  the  measure 
was  reported  by  the  Committee,  but  without  recommen- 
dation. There  was  no  time  then  to  pass  the  bill,  and 
on  March  15th  it  was  withdrawn  by  its  author. 

The  Estudillo  bill,  as  it  was  known  on  the  Senate 
side  of  the  Capitol,  had  a  more  eventful  history.  Intro- 
duced in  the  Senate  on  January  8th,  it  had  gone  to  the 
famous  Committee  on  Election  Laws,  which  had  been 
stacked  for  the  defeat  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  Estu- 
dillo was,  to  be  sure,  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  but  a 
lamb  herding  lions  never  had  a  harder  job  on  its  hands 
than  did  Estudillo.  He  could  not  get  his  committee  to- 
gether to  consider  the  well-backed  Direct  Primary  bill, 
let  alone  the  worthy  but  not  politically  supported  local 
option  measure. 

Along  about  the  middle  of  February,  however,  Estu- 
dillo succeeded  in  getting  the  committee  to  act.  By  a 
vote  of  four  to  four  the  committee  refused  to  recom- 
mend the  Local  Option  bill  for  passage.  Senator  Stet- 
son, who  favored  the  passage  of  the  measure,  to  compel 
committee  action  and  get  the  bill  before  the  Senate,  there- 
upon moved  that  the  bill  be  referred  back  to  the  Senate 
with  recommendation  that  it  do  not  pass.  Senator  Stet- 
son's motion  prevailed. 

Thus,  the  measure  went  back  to  the  Senate  with  a 
majority  committee  report  that  it  do  not  pass.  But  in 
spite  of  this  adverse  report,  the  Senate  passed  the  meas- 
ure on  second  reading  and  sent  it  to  engrossment 


1 88  Local  Option  Bill 

and  third  reading.  It  looked  very  much  just  then  as 
though  the  bill  would  pass  the  Senate. 

But  the  resourceful  machine  had  other  plans.  When 
the  measure  came  up  for  final  passage  on  February  24th, 
instead  of  being  voted  upon,  and  passed  or  defeated,  it 
was  amended. 

To  amend  a  bill  on  third  reading  exasperates  those 
who  are  supporting  it  as  nothing  else  can.  The  bill  must, 
when  thus  amended,  be  reprinted  and  re-engrossed  be- 
fore it  can  be  passed.  The  delays  thus  caused  very  often 
result  in  the  defeat  of  the  measure. 

But  the  reprinted  and  re-engrossed  Local  Option  bill 
got  back  to  the  Senate  on  February  26th,  and  its  sup- 
porters could  think  of  no  other  possible  excuse  for  de- 
laying its  passage. 

But  the  machine  could,  and  did.  On  Senator  Wolfe's 
motion — the  reader  will  no  doubt  remember  that  Senator 
Wolfe  led  the  fight  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill, 
against  the  Anti-Gambling  bill  and  against  the  effective 
Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill — on  Senator  Wolfe's 
motion  the  Local  Option  bill,  instead  of  being  put  on  its 
final  passage,  was  sent  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. 

At  that  time,  the  closing  days  of  February,  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee  was  fairly  swamped  with  important 
measures.  The  Railroad  Regulation  bills,  the  Initiative 
Amendment,  the  measures  providing  for  the  simplifica- 
tion of  methods  of  criminal  procedure  and  other  bills 
of  scarcely  less  importance  were  pending  before  that 
committee.  Prompt  action  on  the  Local  Option  bill  was 
out  of  the  question.  And,  although  a  majority  of  the 


Local  Option  Bill  189 

committee  favored  the  passage  of  the  bill,  the  minority 
which  was  against  it  took  precious  good  care  that  no 
undue  haste  should  attend  its  consideration.  Estudillo 
was  in  constant  attendance  upon  the  committee,  but  to 
little  purpose.  It  was  not  until  March  4th  that  the  com- 
mittee acted.  The  action  was,  of  course,  recommenda- 
tion that  the  bill  do  pass. 

The  bill  had  been  amended  from  time  to  time,  but  as 
it  was  finally  approved  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  was 
a  reasonably  effective  measure.  It  provided  that  on  a 
petition  signed  by  25  per  cent  of  the  electors  of  any  city, 
or  town,  or  county,  the  question  of  license  or  no  license 
must  be  put  on  the  regular  election  ballot.  If  a  majority 
of  the  electors  voted  against  the  issuing  of  liquor  licenses 
in  any  city  or  town  or  township,  the  governing  body 
could  no  longer  issue  saloon  licenses.  Outside  incorpo- 
rated cities  and  towns,  the  basis  of  prohibition  was  made 
the  township,  although  the  vote  was  to  be  taken  through- 
out the  county. 

After  the  measure  had  been  returned  from  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee  of  the  Senate,  Estudillo  fought  man- 
fully to  have  it  considered.  He  finally  succeeded,  on 
March  8th,  in  having  the  bill  made  a  special  order,  that 
is  to  say,  he  arranged  that  the  Senate  should  consider  it 
at  8  o'clock  of  Thursday,  March  llth. 

But  when  Thursday  came  it  developed  that  Senators 
Stetson  and  Boynton  could  not  be  present  that  evening, 
and  they  asked  Estudillo  to  have  the  vote  on  the  measure 
postponed  until  noon  of  the  next  day,  Friday.  This  Es- 
tudillo attempted  to  do.  The  thing  was  done  with  other 
bills  every  day.  Had  Wolfe  made,  the  request,  for  ex- 


190  Local  Option  Bill 

ample,  or  even  Estudillo  on  any  other  measure  than  the 
Local  Option  bill,  the  request  would  have  been  granted 
without  thought  or  comment.  But  on  Wolfe's  objection 
Estudillo's  request  was  denied.  The  machine  saw  its 
opportunity  and  succeeded  in  having  consideration  of  the 
bill  postponed  until  the  following  Monday,  March  15th. 
This  meant  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  Even  had  it  passed 
the  Senate  on  that  date,  filibustering  tactics  would  have 
defeated  it  in  the  Assembly. 

Nevertheless,  the  backers  of  the  measure — although 
pleaded  with  by  weak-kneed  Senators  to  withdraw  the 
bill — insisted  upon  a  vote  being  taken,  when  the  measure 
came  up  on  March  15th.  This  decision  compelled  Wolfe 
to  make  his  famous  "Fate  of  the  Republican  Party" 
speech,  in  which  he  predicted  that  if  the  Local  Option 
bill  became  a  law,  utter  wreck  would  come  upon  the 
Republican  party  in  California.  Birdsall,  Caminetti, 
Holohan,  Rush,  Sanford  and  Strobridge,  whose  votes 
were  ordinarily  recorded  against  the  machine  Senators, 
voted  against  the  bill,  as  did  Anthony  and  Curtin. 
Wright  voted  for  the  measure,  but  otherwise  those  who 
had  voted  against  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Gambling  bill, 
against  a  State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senators, 
against  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill,  in  a  word, 
those  whom  for  the  want  of  a  better  term  we  call  ma- 
chine Senators,  voted  solidly  against  the  Local  Option 
bill.82 

82  The  vote  on   the  local  option  bill   was  as   follows: 
For  the  bill — Bell,  Black,  Boynton,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cutten, 
Estudillo,   Miller,  Roseberry,   Thompson,  Walker,  Wright — 12. 

Against  the  bill — Anthony,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Burnett,  Caminetti, 
Curtin,  Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt, 
Lewis,  Martinelli,  McCartney,  Price,  Reily,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stro- 
bridge, Weed,  Welch,  Willis,  Wolfe— 25. 


Local  Option  Bill  191 

The  final  showing  for  the  Local  Option  bill  was  not  a 
good  one,  but  in  spite  of  it,  many  in  touch  with  condi- 
tions in  the  Senate  held  that  had  the  vote  been  taken 
in  the  middle  of  February  instead  of  the  middle  of 
March,  the  bill  would  have  had  a  good  chance  for  pass- 
age. After  the  delay  of  ten  weeks  from  the  time  of  its 
introduction  until  the  final  vote  upon  it,  there  was  no 
chance  at  all  for  it  to  become  a  law. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  INITIATIVE  AMENDMENT. 

As  in  the  Case  of  Other  Reform  Measures  It  Was  Held 
Back  Until  Near  the  Close  of  the  Session — Principle 
Adopted  by  Many  California  Municipalities — Ma- 
chine Thoroughly  Aroused  to  Its  Importance. 

A  most  estimable  old  lady  once  tried  with  indifferent 
success  to  hold  back  the  incoming  tide  of  the  Atlantic 
with  a  broom.  As  one  watches  the  efforts  of  the  ma- 
chine, through  such  agents  as  Gus  Hartman,  Eddie 
Wolfe  and  Frank  Leavitt,  to  stem  the  reform  move- 
ment which  is  sweeping  the  country,  he  is  strongly  re- 
minded of  the  old  lady's  endeavor. 

To  be  sure,  the  machine,  at  the  legislative  session 
of  1909,  by  trick  and  clever  manipulation  succeeded  in 
preventing  any  very  effective  reform  legislation  going 
on  the  Statute  books.  But  nevertheless  the  machine  was 
compelled  in  response  to  the  popular  demand  to  permit 
the  passage  of  a  direct  primary  law,  however  inade- 
quate and  disappointing  it  may  prove  to  be,  and  a  rail- 
road regulation  law,  however  ineffective. 

The  machine's  success  was  not  on  the  whole  so  much 
in  its  permanent  defeat  of  good  measures  as  in  delaying 
their  adoption.  The  machine,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
race-track  gamblers,  could  and  did  put  off  the  day  of 
the  people's  reckoning  with  machine-protected  interests, 
but  on  desperately  small  margins  at  times,  and  under 


Initiative  Amendment  193 

conditions  which  point  plainly  to  the  machine's  ultimate 
undoing. 

A  bull  once  attempted  to  stop  a  freight  train  with  his 
head.  The  train  was  brought  to  a  standstill  and  the 
animal  driven  off  the  track.  A  short  time  later  the  bull 
tried  the  same  experiment  with  an  express  train.  The 
train  did  not  stop,  nor  was  it  seriously  delayed. 

The  aim  of  the  reform  movement  is  to  place  the  gov- 
ernment of  Nation,  State  and  city  back  into  the  hands  of 
the  people.  To  this  end  States  and  municipalities 
throughout  the  country  are  trying  the  direct  primary 
system  of  nominating  candidates  for  office,  extending  the 
principle  of  local  option,  establishing  the  Initiative,  the 
Referendum  and  the  Recall,  and  experimenting,  often 
with  admirable  success,  sometimes  with  discouraging 
failure,  with  other  "wicked  innovations,"  as  Assembly- 
man Grove  L.  Johnson  would  call  them. 

Without  the  machine  fully  appreciating  what  has 
been  going  on,  California  has  for  a  decade  or  more 
been  pushing  rapidly  to  the  fore  in  the  promotion  of 
these  reforms.  In  this  State  the  reform  policies  have 
found  their  best  expression  in  recently  adopted  munici- 
pal charters.  These  charters  must  be  ratified  by  the 
Legislature,  but  up  to  the  session  just  closed  their  rati- 
fication— "wicked  innovations  and  all" — has  met  with  no 
particular  opposition. 

Thus  we  find  most  of  the  modern  charters  of  Cali- 
fornia municipalities  containing  provisions  for  really 


194  Initiative  Amendment 

effective  primary  nominations  by  the  people,83  for  the 
initiation  of  laws,  for  the  referendum,  even  for  the  recall 
from  office  of  corrupt  officials,  which  have  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  people  of  the  cities  a  club  over  the  machine 
which  has  proved  most  effective. 

But  the  machine  is  now  fully  alive  to  what  such  pro- 
visions as  the  initiative  and  the  recall  mean.  When,  for 
example,  the  machine  in  control  of  the  City  Council 
attempted  to  deny  the  Western  Pacific  right  of  way 
through  the  City  of  Sacramento,  the  people  resorted  to 
the  charter  provision  granting  them  the  Initiative,  and 
by  their  direct  vote  awarded  the  right  of  way. 

Even  while  the  Legislature  was  in  session,  one  of 
the  machine's  most  effective  workers,  Walter  Parker, 
could  not  be  present  at  his  post  at  Sacramento,  because 
he  was  required  at  Los  Angeles,  where,  because  of  the 
"recall,"  the  machine  was  in  a  peck  of  trouble. 

The  people  of  that  city  were  employing  the  recall 
provision  of  their  charter  against  the  machine  Mayor 
trapped  in  corruption.  Although  the  then  Mayor  is  a 
"Democrat"  and  Parker  a  "Republican,"  Parker's  pres- 
ence was  required  at  Los  Angeles  to  back  the  machine's 
efforts  to  hold  the  Mayor  in  his  job. 


83  For  example  the  charters  of  Los  Angeles  and  of  Berkeley. 
The  Berkeley  charter  is  a  model  in  this  respect.  It  provides  that 
any  qualified  citizen  may  become  a  candidate  for  municipal  office, 
by  petition  of  twenty-five  electors,  AND  IN  NO  OTHER  WAY. 
The  party  tag  is  thus  done  away  with.  At  the  election,  if  a 
candidate  receive  a  majority  of  the  votes  he  is  declared  elected. 
If  no  candidate  receive  a  majority,  then  a  second  election  is 
held  at  which  the  two  candidates  receiving  the  highest  pluralities 
become  candidates,  the  names  of  all  other  candidates  who  partici- 
pated at  the  first  election  are  dropped.  The  candidate  at  the 
second  election  who  receives  the  majority  is  declared  elected.  A 
movement  is  on  foot  to  have  a  similar  provision  incorporated  into 
the  San  Francisco  charter. 


Initiative  Amendment  195 

So  Parker  could  not  be  at  Sacramento,  where  the 
machine  really  needed  him.  The  machine  leaders  did  not 
think  it  possible  that  a  real  Mayor — especially  a  machine 
Mayor — could  be  dismissed  from  office  through  such  a 
"fool  innovation"  as  the  recall.  But  that's  what,  in  spite 
of  machine  efforts,  happened  at  Los  Angeles. 

These  experiences  and  others  like  them,  forced  it 
upon  the  understanding  of  machine  leaders  that  the  in- 
itiative, recall  and  similar  "innovations,"  have  a  business 
end;  that  they  put  altogether  too  much  power  into  the 
hands  of  the  people  for  the  machine's  safety. 

Up  to  the  session  of  1909  there  had  been  prac- 
tically no  opposition  to  the  ratification  of  charters 
adopted  by  the  several  municipalities.  But  this  year  the 
machine  leader  in  the  Senate,  Wolfe,  let  it  be  known 
that  he  would  henceforth  oppose  "freak  charters,"  "freak 
charters"  to  Senator  Wolfe  being  those  of  the  initiative- 
referendum-recall  order. 

Several  municipalities — Berkeley,  San  Diego,  Palo 
Alto,  Santa  Barbara,  San  Bernardino,  Richmond,  Los 
Angeles,  Pasadena  and  Oakland — had  either  sent  new 
charters  or  important  amendments  to  existing  charters 
to  the  Legislature  for  ratification.  Many  of  the  charters 
and  amendments  came  decidedly  under  Wolfe's  ideas 
of  "freak."  But  there  are  some  extremes  to  which  the 
machine  dare  not  go,  and  it  did  not  dare  to  go  on  record 
as  against  popular  municipal  government.  Wolfe  and 
his  associates  could  and  did  grumble,  but  they  did  not 
dare  refuse  the  several  charters  and  charter  amendments 
ratification. 

So  they  let  the  charters  and  charter  amendments  go 


196  Initiative  Amendment 

by  them  and  braced  themselves  against  granting  State- 
wide initiative. 

That  issue  came  up  in  the  form  of  a  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  State  Constitution  introduced  by  Senator 
Black,  which  gave  the  people  of  the  State  the  power  en- 
joyed by  the  people  of  Oregon  and  of  the  more  advanced 
California  municipalities,  the  power  to  initiate  laws. 

Black's  amendment  provided  that  on  petition  of  eight 
per  cent  of  the  electors  of  the  State  proposing  a  law 
or  Constitutional  amendment,  such  law  or  amendment 
must  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  at  the  next 
general  election,  precisely  as  Constitutional  amendments 
are  now  submitted.  If  the  proposed  law  or  amendment 
received  a  majority  vote  it  was  to  become  a  law  of  the 
State,  independent  of  Legislative  action.  In  a  word,  the 
people  of  California,  had  the  amendment  carried,  would 
have  been  able  to  initiate  the  laws  which  govern  them. 

Naturally,  the  machine,  always  on  thin  ice  at  best, 
thoroughly  aroused  to  what  the  initiative  means,  opposed 
any  such  "wicked  innovation." 

In  its  opposition,  the  machine  was  backed  by  that  ex- 
treme conservatism,  which,  while  sincere  enough,  for- 
ever hangs  on  the  coattails  of  progress ;  the  conservatism 
which  even  in  New  England  as  late  as  1860  drew  back 
its  respectable  skirts  from  abolition;  the  conservatism 
which,  dragged  protesting  over  a  crisis,  never  fails  to 
assume  for  itself  all  the  credit  for  what  has  been  accom- 
plished. Thus  the  machine  had  some  very  respectable 
assistance  in  its  efforts  against  the  Initiative  Amendment, 
the  measure  which  more  than  any  other  before  the  Legis- 


Initiative  Amendment  197 

lature  was  calculated  to  take  the  government  of  Cali- 
fornia out  of  machine  hands.84 

On  the  other  hand,  the  amendment  had  strong  back- 
ing. It  had  been  drawn  up  at  the  instance  of  the  Direct 
Legislation  League,  which  numbers  among  its  members 
many  of  the  foremost  bankers,  capitalists,  educators  and 
public  men  of  the  State— Rudolph  Spreckels,  Francis  J. 
Heney,  James  D.  Phelan,  of  San  Francisco,  and  Dr. 
John  R.  Haynes  of  Los  Angeles,  and  others  fully  as 
prominent  being  among  the  League's  most  active  sup- 
porters. 

In  addition,  the  amendment  had  the  endorsement  of 
the  State  Grange,  of  the  Labor  Unions,  of  the  State, 
county  and  municipal  Democratic  conventions,  and  of 
many  of  the  municipal  and  county  Republican  conven- 
tions. 

But  there  were  plenty  of  reasons  given  why  the 
amendment  should  not  be  submitted  to  the  people.  Per- 
haps the  most  amusing  came  from  Senator  Wright,  of 
Direct  Primary  and  Railroad  Regulation  notoriety.  Sen- 
ator Wright  held  that  inasmuch  as  the  Direct  Primary 
will  result  in  the  election  of  high-class  legislators,  the 
initiative  will  not  be  necessary. 


84  "As  a  source  of  public  education  upon  which  free  government 
must  always  rest,  as  a  means  of  conservative  progress,  upon  which 
the  continued  life  of  all  nations  depends,  as  a  check  upon  paternal- 
ism and  rich  gifts  calculated  to  lull  to  sleep  the  love  of  freedom, 
as  the  key  that  may  be  used  to  open  the  door  to  equal  opportunity, 
the  Initiative  is  fundamentally  more  important  than  all  other  pro- 
posed reforms  put  together." — Arthur  Twining  Hadley,  LL.  D.,  in 
"The  Constitutional  Position  of  Property  in  America." 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  that  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago, 
Bryce  in  his  American  Commonwealth,  pointed  out  that  this  coun- 
try could  not  without  the  initiation  of  laws  by  The  People  enjoy 
the  fruits  of  its  institutions. 


198  Initiative  Amendment 

But  the  two  principal  objections  raised  to  the  initia- 
tive were  that : 

1.  It  would  lead  to  a  flood  of  bills  being  submitted  to 
the  people. 

2.  That  the  people  would  not  take  sufficient  interest 
in  the  proposed  laws  to  consider  them  carefully. 

Both  these  objections  were  readily  answered  by  the 
proponents  of  the  amendment,  who  gave  the  experience 
of  States  in  which  the  initiative  has  been  tried. 

Oregon,  for  example,  adopted  the  initiative  in  1902. 
In  1904  but  two  proposed  laws  were  introduced  under  it; 
in  1906,  five ;  and  in  1908,  nineteen.  Inasmuch  as  in 
1908  California  voted  upon  twenty-one  constitutional 
amendments  and  statutes  which  had  been  submitted  by 
the  Legislature  of  1907,  it  will  be  seen  that  Oregon  was 
not  particularly  submerged  by  a  flood  of  elector-initiated 
legislation. 

In  Canton  Berne,  Switzerland,  where  for  half  a  cen- 
tury all  the  laws  have  been  adopted  by  the  initiative  sys- 
tem, the  average  of  laws  proposed  has  been  only  rwo 
and  a  half  a  year. 

As  to  the  second  objection,  it  was  easily  shown  that 
in  Oregon  the  keenest  interest  is  taken  in  the  measures 
proposed  through  the  initiative.  Some  were  shown  to 
have  been  adopted  by  enormous  majorities;  others  to 
have  been  rejected  by  majorities  as  large. 

Thus  the  objections  to  the  amendment  were  easily 
disposed  of. 

Their  arguments  answered,  the  opponents  of  the 
amendment  schemed  to  prevent  its  consideration  until 


Initiative  Amendment  199 

the  closing  days  of  the  session  or  prevent  consideration 
entirely. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  amendment  had  been  introduced 
by  Drew  of  Fresno.  It  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Constitutional  Amendments,  where  it  was  smothered 
to  death.  Although  referred  to  the  committee  on  Janu- 
ary 11,  the  committee  took  no  action  upon  it.  Coghlan 
of  San  Francisco  was  chairman  of  the  committee;  asso- 
ciated with  him  were  Legislators  of  the  types  of  Johnson 
of  Sacramento,  McClelland  and  Baxter.  In  vain  those 
advocating  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  urged  the 
committee  to  act.  Meetings  were  indeed  arranged,  at 
which  the  proponents  of  the  reform  would  be  present, 
but  the  committeemen  would  fail  to  attend. 

A  less  exasperating,  but  no  less  effective  fight  was 
carried  on  in  the  Senate. 

On  the  Senate  side,  the  amendment  introduced  by 
Black  went  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  This  committee 
was  made  up  of  the  nineteen  lawyers  in  the  Senate, 
every  lawyer  going  on  the  committee.  But  Warren 
Porter  named  the  order  of  their  rank,  and  the  chairman 
and  the  four  ranking  members  of  the  committee  voted 
eternally  with  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  faction.  On  a  straight 
vote  the  majority  of  the  committee  was  against  the  ma- 
chine, as  was  shown  in  the  fight  for  an  effective  railroad 
regulation  bill.  But  when  it  came  to  getting  results  in 
the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  craft  and  leadership, 
as  has  been  shown  in  previous  chapters,  not  infrequently 
overcame  numbers. 

On  February  16,  the  reform  element  of  the  com- 
mittee insisted  that  action  be  taken  on  the  amendment. 


2OO  Initiative  Amendment 

Chairman  Willis  was  reluctant  to  put  the  question. 
Few  machine  members  of  the  committee  were  in  at- 
tendance. The  anti-machine  members  were  insistent. 
Willis  was  finally  forced  to  put  the  question,  and  the 
amendment,  after  the  percentage  of  voters  required  to 
sign  a  petition  for  the  initiation  of  a  law  had  been  raised 
from  eight  to  twelve  per  cent,  was  favorably  reported 
back  to  the  Senate. 

But  Senator  Willis  was  able  to  do  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  what  he  had  been  unable  to  do  in  the  committee, 
namely,  secure  further  delay.  He  protested  to  the  Sen- 
ate at  the  "snap  judgment"  of  his  committee,  with  the 
result  that  it  was  re-referred  to  that  body.  The  com- 
mittee, however,  for  the  second  time  sent  it  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted. 

Then  followed  a  series  of  delays  in  the  Senate,  so 
that  the  measure  was  not  brought  to  vote  until  March 
llth. 

For  the  adoption  of  a  Constitutional  amendment,  a 
two-thirds  vote — twenty-seven — is  required  in  the  Sen- 
ate. The  proponents  of  the  amendment  had  good  reason 
to  believe  that  that  number  of  Senators  would  vote  for 
its  adoption.  The  Senators  counted  upon  to  vote  for  the 
amendment  were :  Anthony,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Hare,  Ken- 
nedy, McCartney,  Reily,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stet- 
son, Thompson,  Walker,  Welch — 20,  who  actually  voted 
for  the  amendment;  Finn,  Strobridge,  Cartwright  and 
Holohan,  who  were  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken, 
but  who  were  pledged  to  the  reform ;  Lewis,  Bills,  Cur- 
tin  and  Miller,  who  were  counted  on  the  side  of  the 


Initiative  Amendment  201 

amendment  until  it  came  to  a  vote.  This  made  twenty- 
eight  votes,  one  more  than  enough  for  adoption. 

Kennedy,  Reily,  Welch,  Finn  and  Hare,  usually 
against  reform  legislation,  were  counted  for  the  Initia- 
tive because  of  convention  obligations  which  could  not 
well  be  ignored.  Lewis,  McCartney  and  Bills  were 
counted  for  it  because  of  their  alleged  promise  of  its 
support;  Curtin  and  Miller  because  the  Democratic 
State  Convention  had  endorsed  the  Initiative,  and  for 
the  further  reason  that  Curtin  and  Miller  were  ordi- 
narily for  reform  legislation. 

But  on  the  vote,  the  unfortunate  Hare,  Kennedy, 
Reily,  McCartney  and  Welch  remained  true  to  their 
obligations,  while  Curtin  and  Miller  disappointed  those 
who  had  expected  their  support.  The  negative  vote  of 
Bills  and  Lewis  did  not  cause  much  disappointment,  for 
little  else  was  to  have  been  expected,  and  anyway,  the 
negative  votes  of  Curtin  and  Miller,  were  enough  to  de- 
feat the  amendment." 

Curtin  and  Miller,  in  spite  of  their  party's  endorse- 
ment of  the  policy,  expressed  themselves  as  "scandal- 
ized" at  such  an  idea  as  the  Initiative.  But  as  good 
men  as  Miller  and  Curtin  were  scandalized  at  the  idea 
of  abolition  in  1860,  only  to  become  the  most  earnest 
supporters  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  three  years 
later. 

Reform  waves,  like  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  are  not  kept 
back  with  brooms — or  Gus  Hartmans. 


CHAPTER  XX. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  ANTI-JAPANESE  BILLS.  86 

Stir  Storm  in  the  Assembly,  But  All  the  Bills  Were 
Finally  Defeated — Grove  L.  Johnson  Denounces  Ac- 
tion of  Governor  Gillett  and  President  Roosevelt — 
Speaker  Stanton  Places  Himself  in  a  Very  Embar- 
rassing Position — His  Effective  Speech  Becomes  a 
Joke. 

The  Japanese  problem  under  the  bludgeoning  of  the 
big  stick  in  the  skilled  hands  of  President  Roosevelt,  and 
free  application  of  the  organization  switch  in  the  hands 
of  Governor  Gillett,  was  kept  fairly  well  under  control 
during  the  entire  session.  That  the  problem  is  real  was 
demonstrated  by  the  numerous  resolutions  and  alien- 
regulation  bills  which  were  introduced  in  both  Houses. 
The  Assembly,  however,  was  the  scene  of  the  final  de- 
feat of  the  anti- Japanese  element.  There  the  legislative 
campaign  against  the  Japanese  was  fought  out,  and  there 
it  was  lost. 

The  contest  in  the  Assembly  narrowed  down  to  three 
measures,  Assembly  Bill  78,  introduced  by  Drew  of 
Fresno,  known  as  the  "Alien  Land  Bill";  Assembly  Bill 
14,  known  as  the  "Anti- Japanese  School  Bill,"  and  As- 
sembly Bill  32,  known  as  the  "Municipal  Segregation 
Bill,"  both  introduced  by  Johnson  of  Sacramento.  The 


86  The   Assembly   vote    on    the    four   principal    Japanese    issues 
will  be  found  in   Table  I   of  the  Appendix. 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  203 

final  defeat  of  these  bills  settled  the  Japanese  question  so 
far  as  the  legislative  session  of  1909  was  concerned. 

Drew's  Alien  Land  bill  was  by  far  the  most  important 
of  the  three.  It  was  in  effect  a  copy  of  the  alien  land 
law  at  present  in  force  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  gen- 
erally known  as  the  "Illinois  Law."  Under  its  provisions 
an  alien  acquiring  title  to  lands  situate  in  this  State,  was 
given  five  years  in  which  to  become  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States;  failing  to  become  a  citizen,  he  was  re- 
quired to  dispose  of  his  holdings  to  a  citizen;  failing  so 
to  do,  the  necessary  machinery  was  provided  for  the 
District  Attorney  of  the  county  in  which  the  land  was 
situated  to  dispose  of  it,  and  turn  the  proceeds  of  the 
sale  over  to  the  alien  owner.  Ample  protection  was  pro- 
vided for  alien  minors  who  might  possess  or  might  be- 
come possessed  of  California  real  property.  Further- 
more, under  the  provisions  of  the  law,  the  leasing  of  land 
to  aliens  for  a  longer  period  than  one  year  was  pro- 
hibited. 

Though  the  word,  "Japanese,"  did  not  appear,  the 
bill's  introduction  was  a  shot  which  if  not  heard  round 
the  world,  at  least  reached  Washington  on  the  East  and 
Tokio  on  the  West.  Finally,  on  January  25,  Gover- 
nor Gillett  made  the  Alien  bills  pending  before  the 
Legislature  subject  of  a  special  message  to  Senate  and 
Assembly,  in  which  he  urged  the  Legislature  to  do 
nothing  that  would  disrupt  the  pleasant  relations  exist- 
ing between  America  and  Japan,  and  recommended  that 
an  appropriation  be  made  to  enable  the  Labor  Commis- 
sioner to  take  a  census  showing  the  number  of  Japanese 
now  in  the  State,  with  such  other  information  regarding 


204  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

them  as  could  be  used  in  making  a  proper  report  to  the 
President  and  Congress. 87a 

Governor  Gillett  in  the  paragraph  of  his  message  87 
which  dealt  with  the  Alien  Land  bill,  stated  that  the 
measure  might  be  amended  so  that  its  passage  would  not 
embarrass  the  Federal  Government.  Mr.  Drew  promptly 
sent  the  Governor  a  note,  inquiring  "how  amended."  The 
Governor  replied,88  stating  that,  in  his  judgment  the 

87a  A  bill  providing  funds  for  such  a  census  was  introduced 
and  became  a  law. 

87  The    paragraph    in    Governor    Gillett's    message    which    deals 
with  the  Alien  Land  bill,   read  as  follows: 

"If  you  believe  the  general  policy  of  this  State  and  its  future 
development  demands  that  all  aliens,  that  is,  citizens  of  other 
countries,  should  be  discouraged  in  making  investments  here,  and 
that  no  alien  should  be  permitted  to  become  the  owner  in  fee 
simple  of  any  lands  within  this  State — agricultural,  grazing  or 
mineral,  or  of  any  city  property  for  the  purposes  of  trade,  com- 
merce or  manufacturing — then  enact  a  law  forbidding  the  same, 
but  see  to  it  that  it  affects  the  subjects  of  all  nations  alike,  and 
that  under  its  provisions  the  citizens  of  Japan  shall  have  equal 
privileges  with  those  of  England  and  other  favored  nations;  other- 
wise you  might  create  a  situation  which  may  prove  to  be  embar- 
rassing to  the  Federal  Government.  Mr.  Drew's  bill  might  be  so 
amended,  but  in  its  present  form  it  clearly,  as  no  doubt  was  in- 
tended, discriminates  against  the  citizens  of  China  and  Japan. 
Whether  any  bill  should  pass  at  this  time  which  will  discourage 
foreign  capital  from  seeking  investments  in  our  State  is  a  most 
serious  question  and  one  not  lightly  to  be  considered.  But  that  is 
a  question  I  leave  for  you  to  solve." 

88  The   Governor's   letter  was  in   full  as  follows: 
"Hon.  A.  M.   Drew:     Tour  little  note  was  received. 

"I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  best  possible  law  that  can 
be  passed  on  the  question  of  alien  ownership  of  land  would  be 
the  law  adopted  by  Oklahoma.  You  will  find  it  in  the  session 
laws  of  the  State  of  Oklahoma,  1907  and  1908.  The  book  is  on 
file  in  the  State  Library.  The  Act  is  on  page  481. 

"I  would  strike  out  of  the  first  line  the  words  'who  is  not  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,'  because  that  is  useless.  No  alien 
is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  cannot  be. 

"Then  I  notice  the  second  line  of  Section  3,  instead  of  having 
'devise,'  the  word  is  'device.'  I  suppose  this  must  be  a  typo- 
graphical error. 

"To  this  bill  might  be  added  the  last  section  of  your  bill, 
extending  the  time  in  which  leases  can  be  given — so  many  years 
on  agricultural  property  and  so  many  years  on  city  property.  I 
think  one  year  is  rather  short;  inasmuch  as  this  would  apply  to 
all  aliens  alike,  I  would  be  reasonable  as  to  the  length  of  time  for 
which  leases  should  be  granted. 

"I  am  also  of  the  opinion  that  President  Roosevelt  and  Secre- 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  205 

best  possible  law  that  could  be  passed  on  the  question  of 
alien  ownership  of  land  would  be  the  law  which  had 
been  adopted  by  Oklahoma.  Furthermore,  the  Governor 
expressed  the  opinion  that  such  a  law  would  be  satis- 
factory to  President  Roosevelt  and  Secretary  Root. 

Mr.  Drew  was  quick  to  act  on  the  suggestion.  He 
not  only  yielded  to  the  Governor's  wishes,89  but  in  the 
teeth  of  the  severest  opposition  from  the  San  Francisco 
delegation,  forced  delay  of  the  passage  of  his  bill  until 
the  Oklahoma  law  could  be  substituted  for  that  taken 
from  the  Illinois  Statutes. 

The  substitute  measure  provided  that  "no  alien  shall 
acquire  title  or  own  land  in  the  State  of  California,"  but 
the  provisions  of  the  act  further  provided  that  the  law 
"shall  not  apply  to  lands  now  owned  in  this  State  by 
aliens  so  long  as  they  are  held  by  their  present  owners." 

The  substitute  measure  was  introduced  on  February 


tary  Root  would  agree  that  this  bill  would  be  all  right— in  fact, 
I  have  telegrams  from  them  which  would  indicate  such  to  be  the 
fact.  Of  course,  the  question  whether  or  not  it  would  be  policy 
to  pass  an  alien  law  in  this  State  is  something  that  the  Legisla- 
ture would  have  to  consider,  but  if  such  a  law  is  to  pass,  as  I 
say,  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  one  like  the  Oklahoma  law  would 
probably  be  the  best." 

89  Assemblyman  Drew's  reply  to  the  Governor's  letter  suggest- 
ing that  the  Oklahoma  law  be  substituted  for  the  original  bill, 
was  as  follows: 

"Your  esteemed  favor  of  the  26th  inst.,  is  before  me,  and  I  can 
assure  you  that  I  appreciate  the  spirit  in  which  you  have  con- 
sidered the  Alien  Land  bill,  presented  by  myself  in  the  Assembly. 
I  am  strictly  in  accord  with  the  changes  you  suggest.  The  words 
'who  is  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States'  are  surplusage  and  could 
easily  have  been  left  out,  but  they  are  found  in  both  the  Illinois 
and  Oklahoma  laws.  I  am  glad  the  President  takes  the  view 
of  the  matter  that  he  does,  and  you  may  rest  assured  that  1 
will  work  in  harmony  with  yourself.  However,  I  deem  it  advisable 
that  some  law  should  be  enacted  at  this  session  of  the  Legislature. 
I  think  it  will  be  wisdo"m  on  our  part  to  take  this  step,  and 
surely  our  neighbor,  Japan,  cannot  complain  so  long  as  the  bill 
is  applicable  to  all  aliens  alike.  I  will  submit  to  you  a  draft  of 
the  amended  bill  as  soon  as  I  can  get  it  in  shape." 


206  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

1st;  it  came  up  for  passage  on  February  3rd.  In  the 
two  days  which  elapsed  between  the  introduction  and 
final  action  on  the  bill,  the  high  State  authorities  decided 
to  oppose  it.  Speaker  Phil  Stanton  employed  his  influ- 
ence against  it;  one  by  one  its  supports  who  could  "be 
reached"  were  "pulled  down."  Drew  found  himself 
at  the  final  with  slight  following.  The  bill  was  defeated 
by  the  decisive  vote  of  28  to  48.  Mott  gave  notice  of 
motion  to  reconsider,  but  the  next  day  reconsideration 
was  denied. 

The  day  following  the  defeat  of  the  Alien  Land  bill, 
February  4th,  the  "Anti-Japanese  School  Bill"  and  the 
"Municipal  Segregation  Bill"  came  up  for  final  action. 
There  was  also  Assembly  Bill  15,  classed  as  an  anti- 
Japanese  measure,  which  came  up  on  the  same  day.  It, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  two  others,  had  been  introduced  by 
Johnson  of  Sacramento,  by  far  the  ablest  parliamentarian 
in  the  Legislature.  Drew  had  used  facts  and  figures 
when  arguing  for  his  alien  land  bills ;  Johnson  seasoned 
his  statistics  with  a  sarcasm  90  as  peppery  as  one  of  Mr. 


90  Johnson  addressed  himself  directly  to  President  Roosevelt 
and  Governor  Gillett.  The  following  paragraphs  are  taken  at 
random  from  his  speech: 

"I  expect  some  member  of  the  Assembly  to  introduce  a  bill 
here,  the  first  section  of  which  shall  read:  'Before  any  legislation 
is  enacted  it  shall  bear  the  approval  of  James  N.  Gillett  and 
President  Roosevelt  and  if  it  is  denied,  the  bill  shall  be  with- 
drawn.' " 

"Some  of  you  think  legislation  is  like  patent  medicine.  It 
must  bear  on  the  bill,  the  label:  'None  genuine  without  the  note, 
This  is  a  good  bill,  James  N.  Gillett.'  " 

"What  right  have  we,  mere  Assemblymen,  to  have  an  opinion 
on  any  matter?  Why  should  we,  who  were  sent  here  by  the 
people  for  the  sake  of  convenience  and  formality,  have  any 
independence  in  our  thought?  What  right  have  we  to  do  anything 
but  listen  in  awe  and  reverence  to  the  words  of  wisdom  that  drop 
from  the  tongues  of  Governor  James  N.  Gillett  and  Theodore 
Roosevelt? 

"Of  course  we  must  surrender  our  individual  opinion,  and  bow 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  207 

Roosevelt's  ingenuous  opinions  on  "nature  fakers."  But 
while  Mr.  Johnson  entertained  with  his  wit  and  his  in- 
vective, he  failed  to  overcome  the  tremendous  influence, 
State  and  Federal,  that  had  been  brought  to  bear  against 
his  bills.  Assembly  Bill  15,  denying  aliens  the  right  to 
serve  as  directors  on  California  corporations,  was  de- 
feated by  a  vote  of  15  for  to  53  against.  Assembly  Bill 
32,  the  "Municipal  Segregation  Bill,"  91  was  defeated  by 

to  the  superior  intellects  of  the  'Imperial  Power,'  which  Mr. 
Beardslee  loves  so  well.  Since  we  must  vote,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
what  right  have  we  to  vote  otherwise  than  as  the  distinguished 
Governor  and  President  say  in  their  infinite  certainty?" 

Johnson  complained  bitterly  of  the  interference  of  the  President 
with  the  State  and  of  the  Governor  with  the  Legislature. 

"I  have,"  said  Johnson,  "all  respect  for  the  intellect  of  James 
N.  Gillett,  Governor  of  California,  and  for  his  superior,  President 
Roosevelt.  But  I  am  sent  into  this  Chamber  by  my  constituents 
and  not  by  Governor  James  N.  Gillett.  I  have  been  returned  here 
again  and  again,  and  not  because  I  bowed  to  the  authority  of 
James  N.  Gillett.  I  am  here  for  the  good  of  my  people,  the  people 
who  supported  me,  and  who  expect  me  to  support  them.  I  know 
more  about  the  Japanese  than  Governor  Gillett  and  President 
Roosevelt  put  together.  I  am  not  responsible  to  either  of  them. 
I  am  responsible  to  the  mothers  and  fathers  of  Sacramento  County 
who  have  their  little  daughters  sitting  side  by  side  in  the  school 
rooms  with  matured  Japs,  with  their  base  minds,  their  lascivious 
thoughts,  multiplied  by  their  race  and  strengthened  by  their 
mode  of  life. 

"I  am  here  to  protect  the  children  of  these  parents.  To  do  all 
that  I  can  to  keep  any  Asiatic  man  from  mingling  in  the  same 
school  with  the  daughters  of  our  people.  You  know  the  results 
of  such  a  condition;  you  know  how  far  it  will  go,  and  I  have 
seen  Japanese  25  years  old  sitting  in  the  seats  next  to  the  pure 
maids  of  California.  I  shuddered  then  and  I  shudder  now,  the 
same  as  any  other  parent  will  shudder  to  think  of  such  a  con- 
dition." 

91  The  purpose  of  the  Municipal  Segregation  bill,  aa  set  forth 
in  its  title,  was  "to  confer  power  upon  municipalities  to  protect 
the  health,  morals  and  peace  of  their  inhabitants  by  restricting 
undesirable,  improper  and  unhealthy  persons  and  persons  whose 
practices  are  dangerous  to  public  morals  and  health  and  peace  to 
certain  prescribed  limits,  and  prescribing  a  punishment  for  a 
violation  of  this  Act." 

The   bill   in   full   was   as   follows: 

"Section  1.  Whenever  in  the  opinion  of  the  governing  body 
of  any  municipality  the  presence  of  undesirable,  improper  and  un- 
healthy persons,  or  the  presence  of  persons  whose  practices  are 
dangerous  to  public  morals  and  health  and  peace  is  deemed  to 
exist  in  the  said  municipality  and  to  be  dangerous  to  the  public 
morals  and  health  and  peace  of  said  municipality  and  its  inhab- 


208  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

the  close  vote  of  39  for  to  35  against,  41  votes  being  re- 
quired for  its  passage. 

And  then  the  Assembly  took  another  tack,  and  by  a 
vote  of  45  to  29,  passed  Assembly  Bill  14,  the  Anti-Japa- 
nese School  bill.  Leeds  changed  his  vote  from  no  to  aye 
to  give  notice  that  he  would  the  next  legislative  day 
move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been 
passed.  The  Assembly  then  adjourned.  The  day  had 
been  eventful.  A  more  eventful  was  to  follow. 

The  passage  of  Assembly  Bill  14,  after  the  defeat  of 
the  other  so-called  anti-Japanese  measures,  brought  a 
characteristic  telegram  from  President  Roosevelt  to 
Governor  Gillett.  'This  (Assembly  Bill  14)  is  the  most 
offensive  bill  of  them  all,"  telegraphed  the  President, 
"and  in  my  judgment  is  clearly  unconstitutional,  and  we 
should  at  once  have  to  test  it  in  the  courts.  Can  it  not 
be  stopped  in  the  Legislature  or  by  veto?" 

Governor  Gillett  incorporated  that  telegram  in  a  mes- 
sage which  he  sent  to  Senate  and  Assembly  .the  next 
day.  "A  telegram  so  forcible  as  this,"  said  the  Governor, 
"from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  is  entitled  to 
full  consideration,  and  demands  that  no  hasty  or  ill- 
considered  action  be  taken  by  this  State  which  may  in- 
volve the  whole  country.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  time 
to  lay  sentiment  and  personal  opinion  and  considerations 
aside  and  take  a  broad  and  unprejudiced  view  of  the  im- 

itants,  the  said  governing  body  is  hereby  empowered  to  so  declare 
by  ordinance  and  is  hereby  empowered  and  authorized  to  prescribe 
by  ordinance  the  district  and  limits  within  which  said  persons  shall 
reside  in  said  municipality,  and  thereafter  it  shall  be  unlawful  for 
any  person  of  the  class  so  declared  to  reside  in  any  other  portion 
of  said  municipality  than  within  the  said  district  and  limits  so 

"Sec.  2.     A    violation    of    the    provisions    of    this    Act    shall    be 
deemed  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  be  punished  as  such." 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  209 

portant  question  involved  in  the  proposed  legislation,  and 
in  a  calm  and  dispassionate  manner  pass  upon  them, 
keeping  in  mind  not  only  the  interests  of  our  State,  but 
of  the  Nation  as  well,  and  the  duty  we  owe  to  it  in  ob- 
serving the  treaties  entered  into  by  it  with  a  friendly 
power." 

"I  trust,"  concluded  the  Governor,  "that  no  action 
will  be  taken  which  will  violate  any  treaty  made  by  our 
country  or  in  any  manner  question  its  good  faith.  I 
most  respectfully  submit  this  message  to  you  with  the 
full  hope  and  belief  that  when  final  action  shall  be  taken 
nothing  will  be  done  which  can  be  the  subject  of  criti- 
cism by  the  people  of  this  Nation,  and  that  no  law  will 
be  enacted  which  will  be  in  contravention  of  the  Consti- 
tution or  any  treaty  of  the  United  States." 

The  Governor's  message  was  not  at  all  well  re- 
ceived ; 92  in  fact,  Governor  and  message  were  de- 


92  "Never  before  have  1  heard  of  a  time,"  said  Assemblyman 
Cronin,  "when  a  Governor  has  sent  such  a  message  to  a  Legis- 
lature. I  am  responsible  to  my  constituents  for  my  actions  on 
this  floor  and  I  resent  such  interference.  I  hold  the  Governor's 
action  to  be  indiscreet.  He  has  no  more  right  to  send  such  a 
message  to  this  House  than  have  we  to  dictate  to  the  Supreme 
Court  a  policy  on  any  action  pending  before  it,  on  the  ground 
that  the  best  interests  of  the  State  depend  upon  their  regarding 
our  instructions. 

"Can  we  dictate  to  the  Governor  the  course  that  is  to  be 
pursued  in  an  executive  matter?  Let  us  stand  by  our  guns." 

"If  the  men  change  their  votes  on  account  of  this  fanciful 
talk  from  the  President  and  the  Governor,"  said  Johnson  of 
Sacramento,  "I  shall  certainly  be  pained  and  surprised.  They 
do  not  know  the  conditions  as  I  know  them.  We  have  a  right  to 
protect  our  State,  and  it  will  not  interfere  with  any  international 
relations,  and  they  know  it.  Their  specious  argument  will  not 
change  my  vote  one  bit.  I  know  what  The  People  want — what  I 
want.  I  know  influence  has  been  brought  to  bear.  It  will  be 
further  brought  to  bear.  Now  I  trust  this  vote  will  not  suffer 
by  you  men  changing  your  minds  for  such  groundless  reasons." 

"Since  yesterday,"  said  Assemblyman  Gibbons,  "I  have  changed 
my  views.  I  thought  there  were  three  departments  in  this  Govern- 
ment, but  I  find  I  was  mistaken.  I  recognize  the  error  of  my 
youthful  belief.  I  know  now  that  the  Legislative  and  the  Execu- 
tive are  one,  or,  rather,  that  the  Executive  is  the  Legislative." 


2io  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

nounced  by  both  Republican  and  Democratic  Assembly- 
men. 

From  the  hour  that  the  bill  had  been  passed,  the 
Governor  had  been  in  consultation  with  his  lieutenants 
in  the  Assembly.  Speaker  Stanton  made  canvass  of 
the  situation.  But  little  headway  was  made.  That  re- 
consideration would  be  denied  was  evident.  Leeds,  to 
save  the  situation,  moved  that  reconsideration  be  post- 
poned until  February  10th.  An  amendment  was  made 
.that  it  be  re-referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  It 
was  on  this  amended  motion  that  the  issue  was  fought 
out. 

"I  know  what  you  want,"  declared  Johnson  of  Sac- 
ramento in  his  opening  speech,  "and  you  know  it.  You 
want  to  bury  this  bill.  You  want  time  to  hold  another 
caucus  on  the  question  and  decide  what  you  will  do.  You 
want  time  to  take  another  canvass  of  this  Assembly." 

Had  the  question  been  put  when  Johnson  had  con- 
cluded, reconsideration  would  unquestionably  have  been 
denied.  In  the  emergency,  Speaker  Stanton  left  his 
desk  and  took  the  floor  to  plead  for  delay.  For  once  in 
his  life,  at  least,  Phil  Stanton  was  impressive.  He  did 
not  say  much, — and  as  the  sequel  showed  he  had  little 
to  say — but  there  was  a  suggestion  of  thundering  guns 
and  sacked  cities  and  marching  armies  in  his  words, 
that  caused  the  listening  statesmen  to  follow  him  with 
unstatesmen-like  uneasiness. 

"It  was  not  my  intention,"  said  Stanton,  "to  take 
the  floor  unless  we  were  confronted  by  some  grave  crisis. 
Such  a  crisis  is,  in  my  opinion,  upon  us.  I  not  only  be- 
lieve it,  but  I  know  it.  But  my  lips  are  sealed. 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  211 

"I  would  that  I  could  tell  you  what  I  know,  but  I 
cannot  for  the  present.  But  I  can  tell  you  that  we  are 
treading  upon  dangerous  ground.  I  can  feel  it  slipping 
from  under  my  feet. 

"In  my  judgment  this  matter  should  be  postponed. 
I  believe  that  further  information  will,  within  a  few 
days,  be  given  you." 

The  psychological  moment  had  come  in  the  history 
of  Assembly  Bill  14.  All  eyes  were  turned  on  Johnson 
of  Sacramento.  It  was  for  him  to  say  whether  the 
postponement  asked  should  be  granted.  Had  Johnson 
said  "no,"  such  -was  the  attitude  of  the  Assembly  at 
that  moment,  reconsideration  of  the  measure  would  un- 
questionably have  been  denied,  and  Assembly  Bill  14 
declared  passed  by  the  House  of  its  origin. 

But  Johnson  did  not  say  "no."  93  Instead,  he  entered 
upon  a  rambling  excuse  for  advocating  acquiescence  in 
Stanton's  request  for  delay.  He  rambled  on  that  he 
believed  that  Governor  Gillett  had  been  indiscreet;  that 
he  (Johnson)  did  not  propose  to  be  dictated  to  by  a 
"fanatical  President  eternally  seeking  the  limelight." 

"But,"  concluded  Johnson,  "I  have  listened  to  the 
words  of  our  Speaker,  and  I  see  that  he  is  profoundly 
moved.  For  this  reason  I  am  willing  that  the  bill  go 

93  The  question  has  been  asked — was  Johnson  sincere  in  his 
advocacy  of  the  Anti- Japanese  measures?  The  writer  does  not 
presume  to  answer;  the  workings  of  Grove  L.  Johnson's  mind  and 
conscience  are,  for  the  writer  at  least,  too  intricate  for  analysis. 
But  Grove  L.  Johnson  voted  for  anti-racetrack  gambling  bills  for 
years,  spoke  for  them  and  fought  for  them  as  keenly  as  he  did 
for  the  Anti-Japanese  bills,  always  on  the  losing  side.  But  when 
an  anti-racetrack  gambling  bill  was  before  the  Assembly  with 
some  prospect  of  passage,  Grove  L.  Johnson  was  found  the  leader 
of  those  opposed  to  its  passage.  In  the  case  in  point,  to  Grove  L. 
Johnson,  and  not  President  Roosevelt  or  Governor  Gillett,  or  even 
Phil  Stanton,  is  due  the  credit  for  postponement  of  consideration 
of  Assembly  Bill  14,  a  postponement  which  meant  its  defeat. 


212  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

over  until  Wednesday,  but  out  of  respect  to  our  Speaker, 
and  for  no  one  else  on  earth." 

When  Johnson  sat  down,  one  could  have  heard  a  pin 
drop.  Not  a  dissenting  voice  was  heard.  Further  con- 
sideration of  the  measure  was  postponed  until  Feb- 
ruary 10. 

The  day  preceding  final  action  on  the  bill  was  given 
over  to  conferences  and  caucuses.  The  Democrats  cau- 
cused and  agreed  to  stand  as  a  unit  for  the  bill.  Grove 
L.  Johnson's  immediate  followers  rallied  to  its  support. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  conference  of  those  opposing  the 
measure  was  held  in  Governor  Gillett's  office.  Grove  L. 
Johnson  is  alleged  to  have  been  called  to  the  carpet. 
He  was  asked  to  withdraw  his  support  of  the  measure. 
Johnson  is  quoted  as  replying: 

"Show  me  why  I  should  not  support  it.  Give 
me  the  reasons,  the  facts  and  figures,  why  Roose- 
velt has  any  right  to  interfere  with  this  measure. 
I  want  something  definite.  I  have  heard  these  sup- 
positions and  insinuations  for  years  and  years.  Let 
me  know,  gentlemen,  what  information  you  have 
confided  to  you  that  should  induce  me  to  withdraw 
my  support  and  bow  to  the  telegram  from  Roose- 
velt." 

The  hour  for  reconsideration  of  the  bill,  11  a.  m. 
of  February  10,  arrived  with  the  situation  practically 
unchanged.  Assemblyman  Transue,  Stanton's  right 
hand  man  in  the  fight  against  the  bill,  presented  an 
elaborate  resolution,  laboriously  prepared  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  measure,  setting  forth  why  it  should  be 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  213 

defeated.94  In  it  the  right  of  the  State  to  pass  such 
school-regulating  laws  as  it  may  see  fit  was  affirmed, 
and  the  constitutionality  of  the  pending  measure  alleged, 
but  the  Assembly  was  urged  to  do  nothing  to  disturb  the 
relations  existing  between  this  Government  and  a  friendly 
power.  The  resolution  did  not  strengthen  the  position 
of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  in  the  least.  In  fact,  several 
of  their  number  were  estranged.  So  worked  up  had 
the  Assemblymen  become,  that  Beardslee  of  San  Joaquin 
moved  that  Transue's  resolution  be  considered  in  exec- 
utive session,  but  the  motion  was  lost.  The  resolution 
was  later  withdrawn. 

The  debate  turned  principally  on  demands  from  the 
supporters  of  the  bill,  that  Speaker  Stanton  tell  why  he 
had  felt  "the  ground  slipping  from  under  his  feet"  in 
his  speech  of  six  days  before.  But  Stanton  wouldn't  or 
couldn't  tell.  He  leaned  on  his  gavel  through  it  all 
looking  very  foolish  indeed. 

These  speeches  of  denunciation  pleased  the  supporters 
of  the  bill  immensely,  but  the  luxury  of  denouncing 
Stanton  defeated  the  bill.  Had  the  vote  been  taken  at 
the  forenoon  session,  reconsideration  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  denied.  But  so  much  time  was  taken  in 
making  Stanton  feel  foolish,  that  the  hour  of  recess 
arrived,  and  the  Assembly  scattered  until  two  o'clock. 

This  brief  respite  gave  the  opponents  of  the  measure 
a  last  opportunity.  They  improved  it  by  bringing  over 
to  their  side  enough  members  of  the  San  Francisco  dele- 
gation to  win  reconsideration,  and  the  measure's  defeat. 


94    The    Transue    resolution    will    be    found    in    full    in    the    ap- 
pendix. 


214  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

When  the  Assembly  re-convened  after  the  noon  recess, 
the  members  by  a  vote  of  43  to  34  granted  the  bill  re- 
consideration, and  by  a  vote  of  37  ayes  to  41  noes  de- 
feated it.95 

.  Although  the  Senate  escaped  the  sensational  scenes 
that  attended  the  suppression  of  the  Japanese  problem 
in  the  Assembly,  nevertheless  Japanese  bills  and  resolu- 
tions, with  attending  debates,  made  their  appearance 
there.  Caminetti,  for  example,  introduced  a  duplicate  of 
the  Johnson  anti-Japanese  School  bill,  which  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Education  and  never 
heard  from  again. 

Senate  Bill  No.  492,  introduced  by  Senator  Anthony, 
made  more  trouble.  This  measure  gave  the  people  of 
the  State  an  opportunity  to  express  themselves  at  the 
polls  on  the  Japanese  question.  The  Committee  on 
Labor,  Capital  and  Immigration  recommended  the 


95  Speaker  Stanton  very  modestly  took  much  credit  for  the 
defeat  of  the  bill.  The  following  telegram  was  on  its  way  to 
Washington  almost  before  the  vote  had  been  announced: 

"Sacramento,  February  10. — Theodore  Roosevelt,  White  House, 
Washington,  D.  C. — The  Assembly  just  reconsidered  and  refused 
passage  of  the  Japanese  School  bill.  My  congratulations. 

P.    A.    STANTON." 

The   reply  was  as   follows: 

"Washington,  February  10. — Hon.  P.  A.  Stanton,  Speaker  of 
the  Assembly,  Sacramento,  Cal. — Accept  my  heartiest  thanks  and 
congratulations  for  the  great  service  you  have  rendered  on  behalf 
of  The  People  of  the  United  States.  I  thank  the  people  of  Cali- 
fornia and  their  representatives  in  the  Legislature. 

THEODORE   ROOSEVELT." 

A  further  telegram  was  sent  to  Governor  Gillett: 
"Washington,  February  10.— To  Governor  J.  N.  Gillett,  Sacra- 
mento, Cal. — Accept  my  heartiest  congratulations.  All  good 
Americans  appreciate  what  you  have  done.  Pray  extend  my  con- 
gratulations indivi-lually  to  all  who  have  aided  you.  I  feel  that 
the  way  in  which  California  has  done  what  was  right  for  the 
Nation  makes  it  more  than  ever  obligatory  on  the  Nation  in  every 
way  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  California.  All  that  I  personally 
can  do  toward  this  end,  whether  in  public  or  private  life,  shall 
most  certainly  be  done.  THEODORE  ROOSEVELT." 


Anti-Japanese  Bills  215 

measure  for  passage,  and  it  was  finally  forced  to  a  vote, 
being  defeated  by  twelve  votes  for  and  twenty-two 
against.96 

A  series  of  Senate  anti-Japanese  resolutions  which 
were  finally  included  in  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  6,97 
almost  led  to  a  riot  in  the  Assembly.  After  a  deal  of 
pulling  and  hauling  in  the  Senate  the  resolution  was 
finally  adopted  and  went  to  the  Assembly.  In  the  As- 
sembly, Speaker  Stanton,  as  "a  select  committee  of  one," 
took  the  resolution  under  his  protection.  The  indica- 
tions being  that  the  "select  committee  of  one"  would  fail 
to  report,  a  storm  was  started  by  an  attack  on  Stan- 
ton's  authority  to  be  a  "select  committee  of  one"  at  all. 
The  assailants  were  repulsed.  Nevertheless,  "the  select 


96  The  vote  on  Senate  Bill  492  was  as   follows: 

For  the  bill — Anthony,  Black,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell, 
Cartwright,  Finn,  Hartman,  Holohan,  Reily,  Sanford,  and  Welch 

Against  the  bill — Bates,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Curtin, 
Cutten,  Hurd,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  McCartney,  Miller,  Price, 
Rush,  Savage,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker,  Weed,  Willis,  and 
Wright— 22. 

Absentees — Estudillo,  Hare,  Kennedy,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  and 
Wolfe— 6. 

97  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  6,  which,  as  finally  adopted,  was 
a  committee   substitute  for   Senate   Joint  Resolution  Nos.    6,    7,    11 
and  17.     It  follows: 

Whereas,  The  progress,  happiness,  and  prosperity  of  the 
people  of  a  nation  depend  upon  a  homogeneous  population; 

Whereas,  The  influx  from  overpopulated  nations  of  Asia  of 
people  who  are  unsuited  for  American  citizenship  or  for  assimi- 
lation with  the  Caucasian  race,  has  resulted  and  will  result  in 
lowering  the  American  standard  of  life  and  the  dignity  and  wage- 
earning  capacity  of  American  labor; 

Whereas,  The  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers  under  the  existing 
exclusion  laws  of  the  United  States  has  tended  to  preserve  the 
economic  and  social  welfare  of  the  people; 

Whereas,  We  view  with  alarm  any  proposed  repeal  of  such 
exclusion  laws  and  the  substituting  therefor  of  general  laws; 

Whereas,  The  interest  of  California  can  best  be  safeguarded 
by  the  retention  of  said  exclusion  laws,  and  by  extending  their 
terms  and  provisions  to  other  Asiatic  people; 

Whereas,    The    people    of    the    Eastern    states,    and    the    United 


216  Anti-Japanese  Bills 

committee  of  one,"  after  holding  the  measure  a  week, 
recommended  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Federal  Relations.  The  measure  was  finally  adopted  and 
went  to  the  Governor. 


States  generally,  have  an  erroneous  impression  as  to  the  real 
sentiment  of  the  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast  relative  to  the 
Asiatic  question; 

Whereas,  We  think  it  right  and  proper  that  the  people  of  this 
country  should  be  advised  as  to  our  true  position  on  that  question; 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  Assembly  jointly,  That  we  respect- 
fully urge  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  maintain  intact 
the  present  Chinese  exclusion  laws  and  instead  of  taking  any 
action  looking  to  the  repeal  of  said  exclusion  laws,  to  extend  the 
terms  and  provisions  thereof  so  as  to  apply  to  and  include  all 
Asiatics; 

Resolved,  That  our  Senators  be  instructed  and  Representatives 
in  Congress  requested  to  use  all  honorable  means  to  carry  out  the 
foregoing  recommendation  and  requests; 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  California  be,  and  he  is,  directed 
to  transmit  a  certified  copy  of  these  resolutions  to  the  President 
and  Speaker,  respectively,  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States,  and  to  each  of  our  Senators  and 
Representatives  in  Congress. 

The  resolution  was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  the  following 
vote: 

Ayes — Senators  Anthony,  Bates,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten, 
Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Holohan,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  McCart- 
ney, Miller,  Reily,  Rush,  Sanford,  Savage,  Walker,  Welch,  and 
Wolfe— 28. 

Noes — Senators  Bell,  Price,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  Thompson, 
Weed,  and  Willis— 7. 

The  resolution  was  adopted  in  the  Assembly  on  March  23.  There 
was  no  call  for  the  ayes  and  noes,  and  no  record  was  made 
of  the  vote. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
THE  RULE  AGAINST  LOBBYING. 

Scandals  of  the  Session  of  1907  and  the  Dread  of  Pinker- 
ton  Detectives  Led  to  a  Rule  Under  Which  Machine 
Lobbyists  Could  Work  with  Perfect  Safety,  While 
Advocates  of  Reform  Measures  Could  Be  Barred 
From  Both  Senate  and  Assembly. 

One  of  the  principal  scandals  of  the  Legislative  ses- 
sion of  1907  was  the  openness  with  which  machine  lob- 
byists invaded  Senate  and  Assembly  chamber.  They 
went  so  far  as  to  move  from  member  to  member  during 
roll-calls,  giving  Senator  or  Assemblyman,  as  the  case 
might  be,  a  proprietary  tap  on  the  shoulder,  to  direct 
his  vote. 

Word  of  the  scandal  got  as  far  away  from  Sacra- 
mento as  San  Luis  Obispo  County,  where  A.  E.  Campbell 
became  a  candidate  for  the  Senate  against  H.  W.  Lynch, 
largely  on  the  machine  issue.  Campbell  pledged  himself 
to  denounce  such  lobbyists  as  Jere  Burke,  the  Southern 
Pacific  attorney,  if  they  appeared  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  and  to  have  them  ejected  from  the  chamber. 

When  Campbell  reached  Sacramento  he  let  it  be 
known  that  such  would  be  his  policy.  Campbell  is  thick- 
set and  shaggy  of  eyebrow ;  his  beard  shows  black  on 
his  face  two  hours  after  shaving.  He  has  all  the  ear- 
marks of  a  born  fighter.  He  didn't  look  good  to  the 
machine,  and  his  words  didn't  sound  good.  Incidentally, 


2i8  Rule  Against  Lobbying 

Jere  Burke  discreetly  kept  out  of  the  Senate  chamber 
while  the  Senate  was  in  session. 

Another  thing  which  gave  machine  members  of  both 
Houses,  as  well  as  machine  hangers-on,  much  concern, 
was  the  rumor  started  along  in  December  that  certain 
public-spirited  citizens  of  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 
would  maintain  at  the  Capital  during  the  session  a  lobby 
to  protect  the  interests  of  the  people,  just  as  the  machine 
lobby  looks  after  the  well-being  of  machine-protected 
corporations  and  individuals. 

This  rumor  caused  great  distress.  It  had  all  sorts 
of  versions.  One  story  was  that  a  corps  of  Pinkertons 
would  be  employed  to  look  for  bugs  in  bills,  boodle  in 
sacks,  and  boodle-itching  palms.  Another  account  had 
it  that  the  supervision  was  to  be  carried  on  by  the  San 
Francisco  graft  prosecution,  and  that  Burns  men  would 
be  in  constant  attendance.  A  report,  started  early  in  the 
session,  that  a  Burns  detective  had  secured  a  job  as  As- 
sembly clerk  almost  threw  that  body  into  hysterics. 

Campbell's  threats  and  the  anti-machine  lobby  ru- 
mors seem  to  have  had  their  effect  upon  the  Committee 
on  Rules  of  each  House.  At  any  rate,  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  adopted  rules  that  no  person  engaged  in  pre- 
senting any  business  to  the  Legislature  or  its  Committees 
should  be  permitted  to  do  business  with  a  member  while 
the  House  to  which  the  member  belonged  was  in  session. 
Persons  transgressing  this  rule  were  to  be  removed  from 
the  floor  of  the  House  in  which  the  offense  was  com- 
mitted, and  kept  out  during  the  remainder  of  the  session. 

The  rule  was  employed  in  one  instance  only.  George 
Baker  Anderson,  of  The  People's  Legislative  Bureau, 


Rule  Against  Lobbying  219 

was  ruled  out  of  the  Assembly,  and,  in  effect,  out  of  the 
Senate  Chamber.  Jere  Burke  kept  away  from  both,  but 
it  was  probably  Campbell's  threat  more  than  the  rule  that 
influenced  Burke.  With  these  two  exceptions,  the  lobby- 
ists had  pretty  much  the  run  of  both  chambers.  It  should 
be  said,  however,  that  while  none  of  those  lobbyists 
were  threatened  with  expulsion  from  the  floor  of  either 
House  for  advocating  machine-backed  measures  and 
policies,  persons  advocating  reform  measures  were 
threatened  with  the  anti-lobbying  rules.  But  Anderson 
was  the  only  one  to  suffer  because  of  them. 

The  curious  feature  of  Anderson's  case  was  that  no- 
body seems  to  have  been  able  to  discover  that  he  ever  did 
any  lobbying,  or  asked  a  member  of  either  body  to  sup- 
port or  oppose  any  measure  or  policy,  or  that  he  even  so 
much  as  spoke  to  a  legislator  while  the  House  to  which 
the  legislator  belonged  was  in  session. 

Anderson  was  in  charge  of  a  Legislative  Bureau,  one 
purpose  of  which  was  to  keep  the  newspapers  of  the 
State  which  were  not  represented  by  correspondents  at 
the  Capital,  informed  of  the  votes  on  the  various  meas- 
ures, and  other  items  of  importance  or  interest.  Some- 
body early  in  the  session  called  the  bureau  a  "lobby,"  and 
somebody  else  improved  the  title  by  calling  it  "People's 
Lobby." 

And  then  certain  Senators  and  Assemblymen  awoke 
to  the  startling  discovery  that  in  the  Legislative  Bureau, 
presided  over  by  Anderson,  was  the  People's  Lobby  that 
was  to  employ  Pinkerton's  or  Burns'  men  to  watch  the 
Legislature.  Anderson  was  a  marked  man  from  that 
moment. 


22O  Rule  Against  Lobbying 

Curiously  enough  this  theory  of  Anderson's  purpose 
didn't  anger  a  single  member  of  Senate  or  Assembly 
who,  during  the  nearly  three  months  that  followed,  voted 
against  machine-advocated  measures,  and  for  measures 
which  the  machine  opposed.  Assemblymen  of  the  type 
of  Bohnett,  Hinkle,  Cattell,  Callan  and  Drew,  Senators 
like  Bell,  Black,  Campbell  and  Holohan  either  treated  the 
Pinkerton  story  as  a  joke  or  thought  that  a  little  Pinker- 
ton  watchfulness  might  be  a  pretty  good  proposition,  all 
things  considered. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  of  the  Senators  and  As- 
semblymen who  were  in  constant  opposition  to  reform 
policies,  were  very  much  exercised  that  anybody  should 
have  the  audacity  to  have  a  watch  kept  upon  the  Legis- 
lature. This  intense  feeling  found  perhaps  its  best  ex- 
pression in  Assemblyman  McManus'  denunciation  of  An- 
derson, when  the  question  of  having  Anderson  "investi- 
gated" was  before  the  Assembly. 

"It  is  a  sad  state  of  affairs,"  said  McManus,  "if  a 
band  of  Pinkertons  are  here  to  follow  the  members  up. 
We  aren't  everyday  street-car  conductors.  We  don't 
have  to  have  spotters  to  watch  us." 

But  perhaps  the  most  astonishing  feature  of  the  whole 
astonishing  Anderson  incident  is  that  nobody  was  ever 
able  to  connect  him  with  a  detective  of  any  stripe  what- 
soever, Burns,  Pinkerton,  or  unclassified.  But  this  did 
not  prevent  his  being  ruled  off  the  floor  of  the  Assembly, 
and,  in  effect,  of  the  Senate. 

As  the  most  amazing  rumors  about  Anderson — many 


Rule  Against  Lobbying  221 

started  as  jokes  98 — multiplied,  the  indignation  of  certain 
Assemblymen  and  Senators  increased.  Matters  came 
to  a  climax  when  Anderson  sent  a  ^number  of  letters  to 
members  who  had  been  absent  from  the  chamber  when 
the  first  vote  was  taken  on  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Gamb- 
ling bill,  asking  them  if  they  would  be  willing  to  give  the 
reasons  for  their  absence. 

The  difference  in  the  effect  of  the  letters  was  aston- 
ishing. Assemblyman  Prescott  F.  Cogswell,  who  had 
been  favored  with  one  of  them,  stated  on  the  floor  of  the 
Assembly  that  he  had  been  glad  of  the  opportunity  to 
make  known  the  cause  of  his  absence  when  the  vote  was 
taken.  On  the  other  hand,  Assemblyman  Wheelan,  who 
had  received  a  duplicate  of  the  letter  which  Cogswell  had 
welcomed,  was  very  much  cast  down.  Wheelan,  arising 
to  a  question  of  personal  privilege,  read  the  letter,  and 
wanted  to  know  if  he  hadn't  been  "insulted."  " 

98  A    party    of    newspapermen    were    in    Anderson's    office    one 
evening,  when  two  or  three  machine  men  came  in.     With  a  wink 
to  Anderson  one  of  the  newspapermen  asked — "The  head  of  your 
detective  bureau   is  that  keen  looking  young  fellow,   with   reddish 
brown  hair  and  brown  eyes,  is  he  not,  Anderson?"    Anderson  joined 
in   the  joke  and  nodded.     One   of   the   machine  men  left   the  room 
immediately.     Within  an   hour,   a  hunt  was  being  made  from   one 
end   of  Sacramento  to   the  other,   for  a   "keen-looking  young  man 
with  reddish  brown  hair  and  brown  eyes." 

99  The    communication    which    insulted    Wheelan    read    as    fol- 
lows: 

The   Hon.    Albert   P.    Wheelan, 

Member   of  Assembly. 
Dear  Sir:— 

The  People's  Legislative  Bureau,  organized  chiefly  for  the  col- 
lection and  dissemination  of  accurate  information  regarding  legis- 
lation, and  the  attitude  of  members  of  the  Legislature  thereon, 
notes  that  you  are  recorded  as  having  been  absent  when  the 
roll  was  called  on  the  motion  to  refer  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling bill  back  to  the  committee. 

As  our  record  is  intended  to  be  permanent,  and  will  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  all  the  newspapers  and  civic  organizations  through- 
put the  State,  we  wish  to  ask  if  you  have  any  objection  to  furnish- 
ing us  the  reason  for  your  absence,  so  that  we  may  enter  it  upon 
our  record.  Respectfully  yours, 

GEORGE  B.  ANDERSON, 

Secretary. 


222  Rule  Against  Lobbying 

Assemblyman  Beardslee  hastened  to  assure  Mr. 
Wheelan  that  he  had  been.  Furthermore,  Beardslee 
thumped  his  ample  chest  a  thump,  and  announced : 

"I,  too,  am  insulted,  for  my  brother  has  been  insulted, 
and  who  insults  my  brother,  insults  me." 

That  seemed  to  settle  it.  The  Committee  on  Rules  was 
instructed  to  investigate  the  letter  incident. 

The  Committee  on  Rules  consisted  of  Johnston  of 
Contra  Costa,  Transue,  Grove  L.  Johnson,  Beardslee  and 
Stanton,  the  Committee,  by  the  way,  of  "gag  rules"  no- 
toriety. The  investigation  was  held  behind  closed  doors. 

Anderson  was  asked  about  the  letter  and  his  purpose 
in  writing  it,  to  all  of  which  he  replied  directly  and  with- 
out hesitation.  And  then  came  the  burning  question  of 
the  hour: 

"How  many  Pinkertons  are  there  in  your  employ  in 
Sacramento,  Mr.  Anderson?"  asked  Johnson. 

Anderson  refused  to  answer  the  question.  His  wiser 
course  would  perhaps  have  been  to  answer  truthfully, 
"None  at  all,"  and  end  the  joke.  But  that  was  Ander- 
son's business.  He  declined  to  answer. 

Anderson's  refusal  to  answer  was  solemnly  reported 
by  the  committee  back  to  the  Assembly.  Some  mem- 
bers when  the  report  was  read  laughed,  others  were 
made  very  serious  indeed.  It  was  finally  decided  that  the 
investigation  of  Anderson  should  be  turned  over  to  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  of  which  Grove  L.  Johnson  was 
chairman. 

The  Judiciary  Committee  was  solemnly  authorized  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  administer  oaths. 
While  the  investigation  was  pending,  Anderson  was  de- 


Rule  Against  Lobbying  223 

nied  admittance  to  the  Assembly  chamber.  As  the  press 
badge,  admitting  Anderson  to  both  Assembly  and  Senate 
chambers  had  been  taken  from  him,  he  was  unable  to 
enter  the  Senate  chamber  either. 

And  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee  failed  to 
investigate.  Although  Anderson  demanded  that  he  be 
given  a  hearing,  and  the  matter  settled,  one  way  or  the 
other,  the  Judiciary  Committee  would  not  and  did  not 
act.  Under  the  Assembly  resolution  ordering  the  inves- 
tigation, however,  Anderson  was  for  nearly  two  months 
barred  from  both  the  Assembly  and  Senate  chambers. 
The  session  closed  without  the  investigation  being  held. 

It  may  be  said  in  this  connection  that  neither  in  the 
State  Statutes,  nor  in  the  rules  of  either  Senate  or  As- 
sembly, is  there  a  word  which  prohibits  the  employing 
of  detectives  at  a  Legislative  session.  Even  though  John- 
son's committee  had  investigated  Anderson's  case,  and 
discovered  tUat  he  was  really  employing  detectives,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  his  punishment  could  have  been  jus- 
tified. The  incident  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  ex- 
traordinary of  the  session — of  any  Legislative  session 
ever  held  in  this  State,  in  fact. 

The  most  interesting  point  in  the  Anderson  case  was 
that  when  pinned  down  for  a  reason  for  excluding  him 
from  the  Assembly  chamber,  the  offended  Assemblyman 
would  invariably  reply  that  he  was  excluded  under  the 
rule  which  prohibited  lobbying. 

Curiously  enough,  however,  lobbying,  in  spite  of  the 
rule,  continued  on  the  floors  of  both  Houses  even  during 
sessions. 

When  the  Islais  Creek  Harbor  bill  was  under  con- 


224  Rule  Against  Lobbying 

sideration  in  the  Assembly,  for  example,  Carroll  Cook, 
and  others  interested  in  the  defeat  of  the  measure  as  it 
had  passed  the  Senate,  appeared  openly  on  the  floor  and 
in  the  lobby  of  the  Assembly,  even  when  the  debate  was 
going  on,  and  worked  for  amendment  of  the  measure  to 
suit  their  aims.  All  this  resulted  in  the  greatest  con- 
fusion. But  Speaker  Stanton  seemed  absolutely  unable 
to  cope  with  the  situation.  The  lobbying  and  the  con- 
fusion continued  in  spite  of  Stanton's  efforts  to  enforce 
something  of  the  appearance  of  order. 

Such  scenes  were  often  duplicated  in  the  Senate. 
When  the  fight  over  the  Direct  Primary  bill  had  the 
Senate  by  the  ears,  Johnnie  Lynch,  George  Van  Smith, 
even  President  of  the  Senate  Warren  Porter,  exerted 
themselves  to  compel  concurrence  in  the  machine-backed 
Assembly  amendments.  This  was  done  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  when  the  Senate  was  in  session,  and  Johnnie 
Lynch  and  Van  Smith  in  particular  were  conspicuous  in 
the  work  in  behalf  of  the  machine's  policy. 

But  it  was  noticeable,  that  those  who  advocated  re- 
form policies  took  no  such  liberties  on  the  floor  of  either 
House.  They  knew  "better.  The  danger  involved  for 
the  lobbyist  for  reform  measures  was  emphasized  the 
night  the  measure  prohibiting  the  sale  of  intoxicants 
within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  Stanford  University  passed 
the  Assembly. 

Charles  R.  Detrick  of  Palo  Alto,  during  the  call  of 
the  House  ordered  on  account  of  the  Stanford  bill,  was 
discussing  the  merits  of  the  measure  with  Assemblyman 
Bohnett,  who  was  leading  the  fight  for  its  passage.  It 


Rule  Against  Lobbying  225 

was  not  a  case  of  lobbying  at  all,  for  both  men  were 
for  the  bill. 

Nevertheless,  Assemblyman  Schmitt, 99a  who  over- 
heard Detrick  mention  the  measure,  warned  the  Stanford 
man,  that  if  he  (Detrick)  did  not  cease  his  "lobbying" 
for  the  bill  that  he  (Schmitt)  would  have  him  (Detrick) 
excluded  from  the  chamber. 

Senator  Walker,  although  a  member  of  the  Senate, 
had  much  the  same  experience.  Walker  was  discussing 
the  Stanford  bill  with  a  friend,  when  one  of  the  op- 
ponents of  the  measure  threatened  him  with  expulsion 
from  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  if  he  did  not  desist. 

And  even  while  these  threats  were  being  made  against 
the  proponents  of  the  bill,  opponents  of  the  measure  were 
working  openly  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  chamber 
against  its  passage.  No  suggestion  was  made  that  the 
rule  prohibiting  lobbying  be  enforced  against  them. 


99a  This  is  the  same  Schmitt  who  objected  so  strenuously  to 
professors  of  the  State  University  being  identified  with  reform 
movements. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  MACHINE  LOBBYIST  AT  WORK. 

How  Jere  Burke  Arrayed  the  County  Officials  of  the 
State  Against  Two  Beneficial  Measures — How  the 
Power  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Was  Employed 
Against  a  California  Enterprise — Danger  Which 
Constantly  Menaces  Legitimate  Enterprises. 

The  problem  of  drawing  the  line  between  legitimate 
and  reprehensible  lobbying  has  perplexed  wiser  men  than 
sat  in  the  California  Legislature  of  1909. 

On  the  side  of  the  lobbyist  it  may  be  said  there  seems 
no  good  reason  why  a  citizen  or  representative  of  a  cor- 
poration which  is  interested  in  pending  legislation  should 
not  appear  at  the  Capitol  and  in  a  legitimate  way  pre- 
sent his  case  to  the  members  of  the  Legislature.  In 
fact,  the  theory  of  committee  consideration  of  measures 
introduced  in  Senate  or  Assembly,  is  based  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  the  citizen's  right  to  be  heard  on  any 
matter  that  may  be  pending  before  the  Legislature.  The 
citizen  cannot  be  heard  before  either  the  Senate  or 
Assembly ;  he  can,  however,  present  his  case  to  the  com- 
mittee the  decision  of  which  carries  weight  with  that 
branch  of  the  Legislature  for  which  it  acts.  No  one 
can  object,  for  example,  that  Mr.  P.  F.  Dunne  appeared 
before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Corporations,  when  the 
Railroad  Regulation  bill  was  under  consideration,  to 
present  the  railroad's  side.  Mr.  Dunne  appeared  openly 


Machine  Lobby  227 

and  aboveboard,  and  although  he  sought  deliberately  to 
misrepresent  the  situation  to  the  Committee,  nevertheless 
to  object  to  his  visiting  Sacramento,  or  even  to  the  work 
which  he  did  while  there,  would  be  forced  and  far- 
fetched. 

In  the  same  way,  Mr.  Seth  Mann,  representing  the 
shippers  of  California,  appeared  before  the  Committee 
and  presented  the  side  of  the  shippers.  Mr.  Mann  spoke 
for  the  shippers  precisely  as  Mr.  Dunne  spoke  for  the 
railroads.  Mr.  Mann,  however,  did  not  stoop  to  mis- 
representation and  deception. 

But  if  Mr.  Dunne  for  the  railroads  or  Mr.  Mann  for 
the  shippers  had  departed  from  openly-presented  argu- 
ment to  buttonhole  Senators  or  Assemblymen  to  tell 
them  they  must  vote  for  or  against  a  given  measure,  or 
look  out  for  trouble,  immediately  would  he  be  open  to 
criticism.  If  either  went  during  roll  call  from  Legis- 
lator to  Legislator  to  tell  the  members  how  they  were 
to  vote,  again  would  he  be  justly  criticized.  Or  had 
Mr.  Dunne  employed  the  influence  of  the  great  corpo- 
ration which  he  represents  to  defeat  or  pass  a  measure 
in  which  his  company  can  have  no  legitimate  interest, 
again  would  there  be  good  reason  for  complaint.  Mr. 
Dunne  could  very  properly — while  acting  as  agent  of 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company — urge  in  a  legiti- 
mate way  the  corporation's  objections  to  the  Demurrage 
bill,  to  the  Full  Crew  bill,  to  the  Railroad  Regulation 
bill,  or  any  other  measure  affecting  common  carriers. 
But  for  Mr.  Dunne  to  have  employed  the  influence  of 
his  position  as  political  representative  of  a  common  car- 
rier to  force  the  passage  of  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  for 


228  Machine  Lobby 

example,  or  defeat  an  effective  Direct  Primary  bill,  or 
the  Party  Circle  bill,  or  the  Judicial  Column  bill,  would 
have  been  most  reprehensible,  for  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company  can  have  no  legitimate  interest  in  any  of  these 
measures. 

So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  Mr.  Dunne  did  not  con- 
cern himself  with  any  measure,  except  those  in  which  his 
company  was  legitimately  interested.  But  paid  servants 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  were  at  Sacramento 
throughout  the  entire  session,  and  managed  to  have  their 
fingers  in  about  all  that  was  going  on.  The  most  con- 
spicuous of  them  was  Mr.  J.  T.  Burke,  more  familiarly 
known  as  "Jere"  Burke. 

A  fair  sample  of  Burke's  methods — and  Burke  is 
merely  typical  of  the  objectionable  lobbyist — is  found  in 
the  campaign  which  was  carried  on  against  Senate  Bills 
1229  and  1230.  Had  these  measures  become  laws,  it 
would  have  been  possible  for  county  assessors  to  dis- 
cover property,  owned  principally  by  public  service  cor- 
porations, which  at  present  escapes  taxation.  It  is  esti- 
mated that  the  total  taxable  value  of  this  untaxed  prop- 
erty is  $100,000,000.  It  is  not  taxed  because  assessors 
have  no  means  of  reaching  it.  Mr.  Burke's  company 
could  have  no  legitimate  interest  in  Senate  Bills  1229  and 
1230.  This  statement  is  made,  of  course,  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  officials  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Com- 
pany aim  to  make  honest  returns  to  the  tax  collector. 
But  to  return  to  Senate  Bills  1229  and  1230,  and  Burke's 
connection  with  them. 

The  two  measures  were  intended  to  amend  sections 
of  the  Codes  relating  to  the  assessment  of  property. 


Machine  Lobby  229 

Section  3681  of  the  Political  Code  provides  that  "during 
the  session  of  the  Board  (of  Supervisors  sitting  as  a 
Board  of  Equalization)  it  may  direct  the  Assessor  to 
assess  any  taxable  property  that  has  escaped  assessment, 
or  to  add  to  the  amount,  number  and  quality  of  prop- 
erty, when  a  false  or  incompetent  list  has  been  rendered." 

Under  this  section,  as  it  at  present  reads,  the  Super- 
visors may  direct  the  Assessor  to  assess  property  that 
may  have  escaped  assessment,  but  there  is  no  machinery 
provided  by  which  the  property  may  be  discovered. 
Senate  Bill  1229  provided  the  machinery  by  which  the 
unassessed  property  might  be  discovered,  by  adding  to 
the  section  quoted  above:  "And  the  Board  (the  Super- 
visors sitting  as  a  Board  of  Equalization)  may  employ 
legal  or  other  assistance  in  discovering  any  taxable  prop- 
erty that  has  escaped  assessment  in  the  performance  of 
their  duties  under  this  section." 

Senate  Bill  1230,  the  companion  bill,  provided  that  the 
Supervisors  may  subpena  witnesses  in  all  matters  pend- 
ing before  them  when  sitting  as  a  Board  of  Equalization. 
Under  the  present  law,  they  can  compel  attendance  of 
witnesses  only  upon  the  particular  point  under  considera- 
tion. 

The  necessity  of  the  amendments  was  generally  ad- 
mitted. The  task  of  the  Assessor  is  at  best  no  easy  one. 
Through  his  deputies  he  must  list  all  the  property  in  his 
county — that  he  can  find. 

The  holdings  of  the  small  property  owners  are  in 
sight,  and,  down  to  the  last  chicken,  go  on  the  assessment 
roll. 

The  property  of  the  large  corporation  is  not  so  readily 


230  Machine  Lobby 

discovered  and  $100,000,000  worth  of  it,  according  to 
conservative  estimate,  escapes  assessment.  The  Asses- 
sors, with  comparatively  small  force  of  deputies,  have  no 
way  to  force  its  assessment. 

The  Board  of  Supervisors,  sitting  as  a  Board  of 
Equalization,  may  know  that  the  unassessed  property  is 
in  existence,  but  has  no  way  to  reach  it.  The  Board 
may,  under  section  3681  of  the  Political  Code  quoted 
above,  direct  the  Assessor  to  assess  it,  but  the  law  stops 
there.  There  is  no  machinery  provided  for  the  discovery 
of  the  property.  Senate  Bills  1229  and  1230  provided 
the  machinery.  They  were  introduced  by  Senator  San- 
ford  of  Mendocino.  Before  their  significance  was  appre- 
ciated by  Southern  Pacific  lobbyists,  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee  had  recommended  thern  for  passage. 

When  Burke  did  grasp  the  significance  of  the  meas- 
ures, he  demanded  of  Sanford  that  they  be  withdrawn. 
The  argument  which  Burke  advanced  against  them  was 
in  effect  as  follows : 

"These  bills  are  the  most  un-American  propositions  I 
ever  heard  of,"  said  Burke.  "They  make  of  the  Boards 
of  Supervisors  inquisitorial  bodies.  The  corporations 
have  property  which  they  prefer  to  conceal.  They  pre- 
fer arbitrary  assessments.  They  do  not  care  to  make 
returns  to  the  Assessor.  The  passage  of  these  bills  would 
compel  them  to  make  returns." 

In  other  words,  the  corporations,  if  Jere  Burke,  their 
legislative  representative,  reflects  their  sentiments,  prefer 
that  the  Assessors  continue  to  guess  at  the  value  of  their 
properties.  If  the  guess  be  too  high,  the  corporations 
can  compel  reductions ;  if  the  guess  be  too  low,  they  rest 


Machine  Lobby  231 

content.  But,  however  the  corporations  may  approve 
the  guessing  method  of  assessment,  it  has  not  proved 
equable,  has  not  been  fair  to  the  farmer,  the  merchant 
and  the  householder,  who  under  oath  make  honest  re- 
turns to  the  Assessor. 

Burke's  argument,  however,  failed  to  move  Sanford. 
The  Senator  from  Mendocino  refused  to  withdraw  the 
bills.  And  then  a  curious  thing  happened.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  were,  within  three  days  after  Sanford 
had  refused  to  withdraw  the  bills,  fairly  swamped  with 
telegrams  and  letters  from  County  Assessors  and  County 
Supervisors,  protesting  against  the  passage  of  the  bills, 
on  the  ground  that  their  passage  would  be  a  reflection 
upon  the  County  Assessors  of  the  State.  Many  who  thus 
telegraphed  or  wrote,  stated  that  they  had  not  seen  the 
bills  but  added  in  effect,  "We  understand  that  they  are 
bad  bills  and  should  be  defeated." 

Of  course,  there  was  no  evidence  that  Burke  or  his 
agents  had  instigated  the  telegrams.  But  there  was  a 
shrewd  suspicion  that  such  was  the  case.  Sanford's  an- 
swer to  the  Supervisors  and  Assessors  was  most  effective. 
He  mailed  them  copies  of  the  Sacramento  Bee  which  set 
forth  the  actual  purpose  of  the  bills,  and  copies  of  the 
bills  themselves.  Immediately  Assessors  and  Supervisors 
who  had  wired  their  Senators  to  oppose  the  bills,  sent 
telegrams  withdrawing  their  opposition. 

In  passing  it  may  be  said  that  neither  bill  passed  the 
Senate.  Bill  No.  1229  passed  second  reading,  but  was 
amended  on  third  reading,  March  11,  and  was  not  heard 
of  again.  Bill  No.  1230  passed  second  reading,  but  was 
not  read  the  third  time.  There  are  other  ways  to  kill  good 


232  Machine  Lobby 

bills  than  to  bluff  their  authors  into  withdrawing  them, 
or  by  stirring  up  State- wide  antagonism  to  them.  The 
incident  shows,  however,  the  State-wide  ramifications  of 
the  machine.  Within  three  days  it  was  possible  for  the 
machine  to  create  the  impression  from  one  end  of  the 
State  to  the  other,  that  Senate  Bills  1229  and  1230  were 
bad  bills,  measures  casting  reflection  upon  the  County 
Assessors.  Only  the  prompt  action  of  Senator  Sanford 
dispelled  this  impression.  It  also  demonstrates  the  pow- 
erful backing  behind  the  machine  agents  kept  at  Sacra- 
mento during  a  Legislative  session. 

It  is  bad  enough  when  the  far-reaching  influence  of 
the  machine  is  employed  to  defeat  measures  which  pro- 
vide the  machinery  to  enable  public  officials  to  enforce 
the  law,  against  beneficiaries  of  the  system,  but  when  one 
of  the  agents  employs  this  influence  to  promote  his  per- 
sonal interests  in  a  matter  in  which  the  particular  cor- 
poration which  he  represents  can  have  no  interest  what- 
ever, particular  emphasis  is  given  the  evils  of  the  ma- 
chine domination  and  reprehensible  lobbying.  To  illus- 
trate : 

A  peculiar  situation  which  has  developed  at  Owens 
Lake  in  Inyo  County,  made  it  necessary  and  proper  that 
slight  amendment  be  made  to  the  law  of  eminent  domain. 
The  water  of  Owens  Lake  is  heavily  charged  with  soda. 
Some  years  ago,  the  Inyo  Development  Company  was 
organized  to  recover  this  soda.  The  company  invested 
$200,000  in  establishing  a  soda-ash  plant  at  the  lakeside. 
This  does  not  include  the  cost  of  building  a  railroad  from 
the  Lake  to  Mound  House,  Nevada,  a  distance  of  about 
400  miles.  The  investment  proved  a  success.  The  com- 


Machine  Lobby  233 

pany  harvests  as  high  as  10,000  tons  of  soda  ash  a  year. 
As  the  product  is  worth  as  high  as  $30  a  ton  at  San 
Francisco,  the  enterprise  adds  an  important  industry  to 
the  developed  resources  of  the  State.  The  method  of 
recovering  the  soda  is  simple.  The  water  is  drawn 
from  the  lake  into  vats,  where  it  is  left  to  evaporate. 
The  soda  is  then  recovered. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  waters  of  Owens  Lake 
are  constantly  receding,  a  considerable  strip  of  land  has, 
during  recent  years,  been  uncovered  between  the  com- 
pany's holdings  near  the  lake  and  the  water.  The  water 
from  which  the  soda  is  reclaimed  has  to  be  piped  over 
this  land. 

Recently  former  employees  of  the  Inyo  Development 
Company  took  up  the  land  lying  between  the  company's 
property  and  the  lake,  and  under  the  name  of  the  Natural 
Soda  Products  Company,  propose  to  go  into  the  business 
of  manufacturing  soda  ash  on  their  own  account. 

Not  long  since  the  new  company  began  to  complain 
of  the  old  company's  pipe,  which  crosses  the  new  com- 
pany's land.  The  old  company  saw  that  it  had  trouble 
ahead  unless  it  could  condemn  a  strip  of  the  recently  re- 
claimed land  for  a  pipe  line.  It  was  found,  however, 
that  there  is  no  law  in  California  by  which  this  could  be 
done.  Under  the  law  of  eminent  domain  land  could  be 
condemned  for  almost  any  other  purpose  than  to  establish 
a  pipe  line  to  carry  water  not  to  be  used  for  irrigation 
or  domestic  purposes.  An  attempt  was  therefore  made 
to  have  the  law  governing  eminent  domain  amended  so 
as  to  read  that  land  could  be  condemned  "for  oil  pipe 
lines  and  pipe  lines  for  conducting  the  waters  of  any 


234  Machine  Lobby 

lake  which  are  not  fit  for  irrigation  or  domestic  pur- 
poses, and  which  contain  soda  or  other  minerals,  or 
chemical  substances  in  solution,  and  also  pumps  and 
machinery  for  raising  the  same  and  forcing  the  same 
through  such  pipes." 

This  amendment  was  included  in  Senate  Bit!  797, 
and  in  the  companion  Assembly  Bill  815.  Senate  Bill 
797  passed  the  Senate  and  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Assembly,  where  the  amendment  pro- 
viding for  the  soda  water  pipe  line  was  added.  This 
bill  received  a  favorable  recommendation  from  the  As- 
sembly Judiciary  Committee  and  was  returned  to  the 
Assembly.  And  then  a  very  mysterious  thing  happened. 
Without  apparent  reason  the  bill  was  referred  to  the 
Assembly  Committee  on  Corporations.  Provision  for 
soda  water  pipe  lines,  so  far  as  the  Assembly  was  con- 
cerned, came  to  a  sudden  ending. 

At  the  time  Senate  Bill  797  was  undergoing  sup- 
pression in  the  Assembly,  the  companion  bill,  Assembly 
Bill  815,  was  pending  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. The  measure  was  amended  to  make  possible  the 
condemnation  of  land  for  a  soda  water  pipe  line.  Chair- 
man Willis  of  the  Committee  expressed  himself  as  satis- 
fied with  the  amendment.  And  as  amended,  the  bill  was 
referred  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  do  pass  as  amended.  Two  days  later,  however,  Sena- 
tor Willis  stated  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that  he  had 
information  from  Inyo  County  which  convinced  him  that 
the  amendment  was  not  desirable,  and  should  be  excluded 
from  the  bill.  He  stated  that  the  county  officials  of  Inyo 
County  opposed  the  amendment,  and  for  that  reason 


Machine  Lobby  235 

suggested  that  the  amendment  be  dropped.  He  stated 
that  the  Assembly  would  refuse  to  concur  in  the  amend- 
ment even  though  the  bill  were  passed  with  it.  Mr. 
Willis'  wishes  were  respected  and  the  bill  re-amended. 
Provisions  for  condemning  land  for  soda  water  pipe  lines 
came  to  as  dead  a  stop  in  the  Senate  as  in  the  Assembly. 
The  next  development  in  this  comparatively  unimportant 
incident  of  the  session,  was  the  discovery  that  Mr.  J.  T. 
Burke  of  Berkeley,  member  of  the  Southern  Pacific  law 
department,  the  Jere  Burke  of  Southern  Pacific  lobbying, 
is  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Natural  Soda  Products 
Company,  which  owns  the  land  over  which  the  Inyo  De- 
velopment Company  would  build  a  pipe  line,  a  pipe  line 
upon  which  the  future  prosperity  of  the  Inyo  Develop- 
ment Company  largely  rests.  Burke  was  alleged  to  have 
opposed  the  amendment — and  so  far  as  the  writer  knows 
the  charge  was  never  denied — and  with  having  brought 
about  the  defeat  of  the  amendment.  In  other  words,  Mr. 
Burke  is  charged  with  throwing  the  full  weight  of  the 
influence  of  the  large  corporation  (the  Southern  Pacific 
Railroad  Company,  which  he  represents)  on  the  side  of 
a  small  corporation  in  which  he  is  a  director,  and  against 
a  third  corporation,  which  has  large  interests  at  stake. 
And  the  citizen  who  stands  for  fair  play  should  not  lose 
sight  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Burke's  corporation,  the  South- 
ern Pacific  Railroad  Company,  is  the  principal  factor  in 
the  machine  which  works  against  good  government,  fair 
play,  the  "square  deal"  in  business  and  politics  which 
President  Roosevelt  insisted  upon.  The  Inyo  Develop- 
ment Company  failed  in  its  perfectly  legitimate  purpose 
because  arrayed  against  it  was  in  effect  the  political  in- 


236  Machine  Lobby 

fluence  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  the 
tenderloin,  and  all  the  other  elements  that  go  to  make 
up  the  political  machine  in  California.  And  the  fact 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  no  other  independent 
enterprise  in  California,  even  where  it  has,  as  has  the 
Inyo  Development  Company,  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars  invested,  is  immune  against  similar  experiences. 

Early  in  the  session  when  the  lobbying  question  was, 
because  of  the  excitement  over  Anderson,  decidedly 
prominent,  Sanford  in  the  Senate  and  Callan  in  the  As- 
sembly introduced  bills  requiring  lobbyists  who  appear 
at  the  Capitol  during  a  legislative  session  to  register  their 
names,  the  names  of  their  employers  and  the  amount  and 
nature  of  their  compensation.  At  the  close  of  the  session 
they  were,  under  the  terms  of  the  measures,  required  to 
file  a  detailed  statement  of  their  expenditures. 

Had  these  measures  become  laws  they  might  have 
proved  very  embarrassing  to  certain  gentlemen  who  were 
very  well  received  by  the  machine  element  in  both  Senate 
and  Assembly  chamber. 

But  they  didn't  become  laws. 

The  Assembly  bill  went  to  the  Assembly  Judiciary 
Committee,  which  held  it  two  months,  finally,  on  March 
16th,  reporting  it  to  the  Assembly  without  recommenda- 
tion. On  March  19th,  the  measure  was  refused  passage. 

The  Senate  bill  went  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. The  Committee  referred  it  back  to  the  Senate 
with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  not  pass.  On  Janu- 
ary 29th,  it,  too,  was  defeated. 

The  lobbying  problem,  like  Jere  Burke,  continues 
with  us. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
INFLUENCE  OF  THE  SAN  FRANCISCO  DELEGATION. 

Casts  Nearly  Twenty-five  Per  Cent  of  the  Vote  in  Each 
House — Majority  Invariably  Found  on  the  Side  of  the 
Machine — Opposed  Passage  of  the  Walker-Otis 
Bill — Instrumental  in  Amending  the  Direct  Primary 
Law — Defeated  Local  Option  Bill. 

The  popular  idea  that  the  State  outside  San  Francisco 
is  not  concerned  about  political  conditions  at  the  me- 
tropolis is  not  borne  out  by  the  record  of  the  legislative 
session  of  1909.  The  San  Francisco  delegations  in  Sen- 
ate and  Assembly  had,  as  they  always  have  had  and  will 
have  for  many  a  year  to  come,  the  deciding  voice  in 
practically  all  important  issues. 

San  Francisco  elects  within  one  of  25  per  cent  of 
the  members  of  the  State  Senate,  and  within  two  of  25 
per  cent  of  the  Assembly.  In  other  words,  nine  of  the 
forty  Senators  come  from  San  Francisco,  and  eighteen 
of  the  eighty  Assemblymen.  The  nine  San  Francisco 
Senators  and  the  eighteen  San  Francisco  Assemblymen 
join  with  the  outside  members  in  making  laws  not  for 
San  Francisco  alone,  but  for  the  entire  State.  Their 
numbers  give  them  decided  advantage.  The  character 
of  the  laws  passed  at  a  legislative  session  almost  in- 
variably bears  the  stamp  of  the  character  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation.  The  character  of  the  delegation 
depends  upon  political  conditions  at  San  Francisco.  The 


238  San  Francisco  Delegation 

whole  State,  then,  is  concerned  in  the  efforts  of  the  best 
citizenship  of  the  metropolis  to  oust  from  power  the 
corrupt  element  that  has  so  long  dominated  San  Fran- 
cisco politics. 

The  record  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  at  the 
session  of  1909,  while  better  in  the  Assembly  than  in  the 
Senate,  is  not  one  for  San  Francisco — or  the  State  for 
that  matter — to  enthuse  over.  The  votes  on  test  ques- 
tions of  the  eighteen  members  of  the  Assembly  and.  of 
the  nine  members  of  the  Senate,  will  be  found  set  forth 
in  tables  in  the  appendix. 

The  table  showing  the  votes  of  the  nine  San  Fran- 
cisco Senators  covers  sixteen  roll  calls,  on  which  the 
San  Francisco  Senators  cast  128  votes,  ninety-nine  of 
which  were  in  support  of  machine  policies  and  only 
twenty-nine  against.  Thus  the  nine  Senators  averaged 
on  sixteen  roll  calls,  eleven  votes  for  the  machine  and 
three  votes  against.  Had  the  San  Francisco  Senators 
broken  even  on  the  issues  involved;  that  is  to  say,  had 
sixty-four  of  the  128  votes  been  cast  for  the  machine, 
and  sixty-four  against  the  machine,  and  the  sixty-four 
anti-machine  votes  been  evenly  distributed  among  the 
several  issues,  the  machine  would  have  been  defeated  on 
every  issue  coming  before  the  Senate. 

The  Assembly  showing  is  not  quite  so  overwhelm- 
ingly machine  as  that  of  the  Senate,  but  it  is  bad  enough. 
Eleven  roll  calls  are  considered.  On  these  the  eighteen 
San  Francisco  Assemblymen  cast  a  total  of  165  votes, 
of  which  108  were  for  machine  policies  and  fifty-seven 
against.  Thus,  even  in  the  Assembly,  the  vote  was  ap- 
proximately 2  to  1  in  favor  of  the  machine.  Of  the  fifty- 


San  Francisco  Delegation  239 

seven  anti-machine  votes,  eleven  were  cast  by  Callan, 
who  made  an  absolutely  clean  record,  nine  by  Gerdes 
and  seven  by  Lightner,  a  total  of  twenty-seven  for  the 
three.  Deducted  from  the  total  of  anti-machine  votes, 
this  leaves  only  thirty  anti-machine  votes  for  the  re- 
maining fifteen  members  of  the  delegation.  Or  to  put 
it  the  other  way,  Callan,  Gerdes  and  Lightner  cast 
among  them  only  four  machine  votes,  which  leaves  104 
machine  votes  cast  by  the  other  fifteen  San  Francisco 
members. 

On  the  individual  issues  the  San  Francisco  Senators 
and  Assemblymen  made  as  bad  a  showing  as  does  their 
vote  in  the  aggregate.  The  passage  of  the  Walker-Otis 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill  for  example  demonstrates  that 
the  poolsellers  had  little  hold  upon  the  legislators  of  any 
community  of  the  State  outside  of  San  Francisco.  In 
the  Senate  but  seven  votes  were  cast  against  the  bill. 
Five  of  the  seven  came  from  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion— Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Reily  and  Wolfe.  The  two 
remaining  came  from  Alameda  and  Shasta-Siskiyou 
Counties.  Leavitt,  representing  Alameda,  and  Weed, 
representing  Shasta  and  Siskiyou,  voted  with  the  five 
San  Francisco  Senators  against  suppressing  book- 
making  and  pool-selling. 

The  record  of  the  San  Francisco  Assembly  delega- 
tion on  the  anti-gambling  measure  is  scarcely  less  sug- 
gestive. Before  the  Walker-Otis  bill  could  pass  the  As- 
sembly the  proponents  of  the  measure  had  to  win  six 
fights,  as  is  shown  by  the  table  giving  the  several  votes 
taken  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Walker-Otis  bill.  The 
three  most  important  of  the  six  were: 


240  San  Francisco  Delegation 

1.  To  prevent  the  bill  being  referred  back  to  the 
Committee  on  Public  Morals. 

2.  To  pass  the  measure  on  third  reading  without 
amendment. 

3.  To  prevent  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by  which 
the  bill  had  been  passed. 

In  the  first  fight  twenty-three  Assemblymen  voted  to 
refer  the  bill  back  to  the  Committee.  Of  these  twelve- 
more  than  one-half — were  from  San  Francisco. 

The  day  of  the  second  fight,  only  ten  Assemblymen 
voted  on  the  side  of  the  gamblers.  Every  one  of  the 
ten  was  from  San  Francisco. 

In  the  third  fight,  on  the  motion  to  reconsider,  nine- 
teen Assemblymen  voted  for  reconsideration.  Of  these, 
ten,  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  were  from  San  Francisco. 

Or,  to  put  it  in  a  lump,  in  the  three  most  important 
fights  over  the  Walker-Otis  bill  in  the  Assembly,  in  the 
aggregate  fifty-two  votes  were  cast  against  the  measure. 
Of  these,  thirty-two  were  from  San  Francisco  Assembly- 
men. Only  twenty  were  from  outside  San  Francisco. 

The  universal  demand  throughout  the  State  for  the 
passage  of  an  anti-pool  selling  measure  offset  the  influ- 
ence and  the  vote  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  in 
both  Senate  and  Assembly.  But  in  the  issues  more  in- 
volved, where  the  lines  were  more  closely  drawn,  San 
Francisco  practically  made  the  laws  for  the  whole  State. 
This  could  be  demonstrated  by  many  instances.  The 
most  striking  perhaps  are  shown  by  the  histories  of  the 
Direct  Primary  measure  and  the  Railroad  Regulation 
bills. 

When  the  first  fight  over  the  Direct  Primary  bill  came 


San  Francisco  Delegation  241 

up  in  the  Senate,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  anti-machine 
forces  defeated  the  machine  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  to 
thirteen.  Of  the  thirteen  Senators  who  voted  to  amend 
the  bill  to  the  liking  of  Wolfe  and  Leavitt,  six — almost 
fifty  per  cent — were  from  San  Francisco.  They  were 
Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Kennedy,  Reily,  Wolfe. 

When  the  machine  element  had  succeeded  in  amend- 
ing the  Direct  Primary  measure  to  its  liking  in  the  As- 
sembly, and  there  came  a  new  alignment  on  the  bill  in 
the  Senate,  eight  of  the  nine  San  Francisco  Senators 
voted  with  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  for  the  amendments,  which 
denied  the  people  of  California  State-wide  vote  on  can- 
didates for  the  United  States  Senate.  <3ne  San  Fran- 
cisco Senator  only,  Anthony,  voted  with  the  better  ele- 
ment in  the  Senate,  against  the  amendments. 

Had  only  two  of  the  nine  Senators  from  San  Fran- 
cisco voted  for  the  bill  in  its  original  form,  the  measure 
would  have  been  passed  by  a  vote  of  twenty-one  to  nine- 
teen without  the  machine  amendments. 

The  influence  of  the  San  Francisco  members  in  shap- 
ing the  Direct  Primary  law  was  even  more  forcibly  illus- 
trated in  the  Assembly.  Of  the  eighteen  San  Francisco 
Assemblymen,  fifteen  voted  for  the  Assembly  amend- 
ments, two,  Callan  and  Gerdes,  voted  against  them,  and 
Hopkins  is  not  recorded  as  voting. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  amendments  were  read 
into  the  bill  by  a  vote  of  thirty-six  to  thirty-eight.  Had 
the  San  Francisco  delegation  divided  even  on  this  vote, 
had  nine  voted  for  the  amendments  and  nine  against,  the 
vote  would  have  been  forty-three  against  putting  them 
in  the  bill,  and  thirty-two  for,  the  bill  would  not  have 


242  San  Francisco  Delegation 

been  amended  in  the  Assembly;  it  would  have  become 
a  law  in  the  same  shape  that  it  had  originally  passed  the 
Senate.  It  is  noticeable  that  in  an  Assembly  of  eighty 
members,  only  twenty-three  of  the  Assemblymen  who 
voted  for  the  Assembly  amendments  to  the  Direct  Primary 
bill  were  from  outside  San  Francisco.  In  the  Senate 
eight  of  the  twenty  Senators  who  voted  for  the  amend- 
ments were  from  San  Francisco,  only  twelve  were  from 
outside  that  city.  Thus,  out  of  120  members  in  the  Legis- 
lature, ninety-three  of  whom  were  from  outside  San 
Francisco,  only  thirty-five  from  districts  outside  the  me- 
tropolis voted  for  the  Assembly,  or  machine  amendments 
to  the  Direct  Primary  bill.  But  twenty-three  of  the 
twenty-seven  San  Francisco  Senators  and  Assemblymen 
did  vote  for  them,  and  only  three  of  the  San  Francisco 
members  voted  against  them. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  people  of  California  who  live 
outside  San  Francisco  are  decidedly  interested  in  the 
character  of  Senators  and  Assemblymen  whom  that  city 
sends  to  the  Legislature. 

The  people  of  San  Francisco  are,  of  course,  as  much 
concerned  over  reasonable  regulation  of  the  transporta- 
tion companies  as  Californians  living  outside  that  city. 
But  the  San  Francisco  Senators  were  a  unit  in  their  op- 
position to  the  passage  of  an  effective  railroad  regulation 
measure. 

The  fight  over  the  railroad  regulation  came  in  the 
Senate.  The  final  line-up  showed  eighteen  Senators  for 
the  effective  Stetson  bill  and  against  the  ineffective 
Wright  bill ;  while  twenty-two  Senators  were  against  the 
Stetson  bill  and  for  the  Wright  bill.  The  Wright 


San  Francisco  Delegation  243 

bill  was  accordingly  passed.  Every  one  of  the  nine  San 
Francisco  Senators  voted  for  the  Wright  bill.  Only 
thirteen  Senators  who  voted  for  the  Wright  bill  were 
from  outside  San  Francisco. 

In  a  word,  the  proponents  of  the  Stetson  bill  were 
from  the  start  handicapped  by  a  solid  delegation  of  nine 
from  San  Francisco  which  they  could  not  overcome.  Had 
three  of  the  nine  San  Francisco  Senators  been  for  the 
Stetson  bill,  that  measure  would  now  be  the  law  of 
California. 

The  transportation  issue  was  fought  out  in  the  As- 
sembly over  the  Sanford  Senate  resolution  endorsing 
Bristow's  plan  to  establish  a  line  of  Government  steamers 
between  San  Francisco  and  Panama.  The  fruit  growers 
of  Southern  California  are  particularly  interested  in  this 
project.  The  Assembly,  however,  amended  all  reference 
to  the  Bristow  report  and  all  criticism  of  the  Pacific  Mail 
Steamship  Company  and  the  railroads  out  of  the  resolu- 
tion. 

Of  the  eighteen  San  Francisco  Assemblymen  only 
one,  Callan,  voted  against  the  amendments;  fourteen — 
Beatty,  Beban,  Coghlan,  Collum,  Cullen,  Hopkins,  Light- 
ner,  Macauley,  McManus,  Nelson,  O'Neil,  Pugh,  Perine 
and  Wheelan — voted  for  the  amendments,  while  three — 
Black,  Gerdes  and  Schmitt — did  not  vote  at  all. 

The  Local  Option  bill  was  also  killed  by  San  Fran- 
cisco votes.  This  measure  was  strongly  backed  by  the 
rural  districts.  The  various  counties,  particularly  those 
engaged  in  farming,  dairying  and  fruit  growing,  sent 
representatives  to  the  Legislature  instructed  to  vote  for 
Local  Option.  The  issue  in  all  ways  concerned  the  coun- 


244  San  Francisco  Delegation 

try  districts  rather  than  the  large  cities.  But  the  votes  of 
the  San  Francisco  Senators  defeated  the  Local  Option 
bill. 

The  first  fight  over  the  Local  Option  bill  came  when 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  events  it  reached  third  reading. 
Instead  of  letting  a  vote  be  taken  on  the  measure,  Wolfe 
moved  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 
This  was  clearly  a  move  against  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
for  it  meant  delay  which  might  prove  fatal.  But  Wolfe's 
motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  fifteen.  The 
nine  San  Francisco  Senators  voted  to  refer  the  bill  to  the 
committee,  only  eleven  Senators  from  outside  San  Fran- 
cisco voted  with  them. 

The  nine  members  from  San  Francisco  continued 
consistent  in  their  opposition  to  the  measure.  When  the 
Local  Option  bill  did  come  to  a  vote  their  nine  votes  were 
cast  against  it. 

The  people  of  Del  Norte  county  and  the  people  of 
San  Diego  county  are  denied  the  privilege  of  voting 
"wet  or  dry"  because  of  the  opposition  to  the  Local 
Option  bill  of  the  solid  San  Francisco  delegation  in  the 
Senate.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  people  of  these  distant 
counties  are  decidedly  interested  in  political  conditions  in 
San  Francisco,  for  in  a  large  way  the  character  of  the 
San  Francisco  delegation  in  the  Legislature  is  unmistak- 
ably reflected  in  the  laws  which  are  passed  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  entire  State. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  San  Francisco  delegation  in 
Senate  and  Assembly  were  nothing  for  that  city  to 
be  proud  of,  and  at  a  critical  moment  San  Francisco 
came  near  paying  dearly  for  her  Hartmans,  Hares, 


San  Francisco  Delegation  245 

Macauleys  and  McManuses.  But  for  the  intervention  of 
the  country  members  the  Islais  Creek  bond  project  would 
have  been  defeated.- 

The  improvement  calls  for  the  purchase  of  sixty-three 
water  blocks  at  Islais  Creek  to  be  converted  into  an 
inland  harbor.  The  future  development  of  San  Fran- 
cisco depends  largely  upon  this  improvement.  But 
private  interests  demanded  that  nineteen  of  the  sixty- 
three  blocks  be  excluded  from  the  plan,  which  would 
have  rendered  the  whole  project  impracticable.  When 
the  fight  came  on,  San  Francisco  Senators  and  Assem- 
blymen opposed  the  purchase  of  the  sixty-three  blocks. 

To  begin  with,  Senator  Wolfe,  as  member  of  the  State 
Harbors  Committee,  had  signed  a  report  which  recom- 
mended that  forty-four  blocks  only  be  purchased.  But 
Wolfe  afterwards  insisted  that  he  had  signed  the  report 
not  knowing  what  he  was  doing. 

When  the  fight  for  the  improvement  came  up  in  the 
Senate,  only  two  Senators,  Hartman  and  Reily,  both  of 
San  Francisco,  opposed  the  project.  They  were  in  the 
end  ignominiously  defeated,  every  Senator  present  vot- 
ing against  them.  But  both  Hartman  and  Reily  did  the 
best  they  knew  how  to  defeat  the  purchase  of  the  area 
necessary  for  the  improvement. 

The  San  Francisco  delegation  in  its  opposition  to  the 
Islais  Creek  project  had  better  success  in  the  Assem- 
bly. Nine  San  Francisco  Assemblymen,  Beban,  Black, 
Cullen,  Lightner,  Macauley,  McManus,  O'Neil,  Ferine 
and  Wheelan,  united  against  the  measure  as  it  had 
passed  the  Senate.  They  succeeded  in  throwing  doubt 
upon  the  necessity  of  the  purchase  of  sixty-three  blocks, 


246  San  Francisco  Delegation 

and  finally  won  twenty-two  outside  members  over  to 
their  way  of  thinking.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  efforts 
of  Assemblymen  Callan,  Beatty  and  Nelson  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, backed  by  the  Los  Angeles  delegation,  the  Islais 
Creek  Harbor  project  would  unquestionably  have  been 
defeated  in  the  Assembly,  solely  because  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  nine  San  Francisco  Assemblymen. 

But  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  of  improved  political 
conditions  at  San  Francisco.  An  anti-machine  Board  of 
Supervisors  is  standing  out  manfully  against  the  de- 
mands of  machine-protected  interests.  The  District  At- 
torney's office  is,  indeed,  pressing  representatives  of  those 
interests  pretty  close  to  the  doors  of  the  penitentiary, 
although  the  District  Attorney  is  handicapped  by  laws  for 
which  San  Francisco  is  largely  responsible,  because 
of  the  character  of  the  men  whom  session  after  session 
she  has  sent  to  the  Legislature. 

There  is,  however,  enough  to  warrant  the  belief  that 
San  Francisco  will  improve  the  character  of  the  Assem- 
bly and  Senate  delegation.  Upon  such  improvement, 
the  well-being  of  the  whole  State  largely  depends. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
ATTACKS  ON  AND  DEFENSE  OF  THE  FISH  COMMISSION 

Fast  Becoming  a  Powerful  Political  Factor — Enormous 
Fund  Which  It  Expends  Practically  Without  Check. 
— Legislative  Investigation  Blocked — Scheme  to 
Give  Commissioners  Salary  Fails. 

Without  the  general  public  realizing  just  what  is  go- 
ing on,  the  machine  is,  in  the  State  Fish  and  Game  Com- 
mission, building  up  an  adjunct  which  seems  destined  to 
play  an  important  part  in  any  fight  that  may  be  carried 
on  by  the  independent  electors  to  break  the  machine's 
strangle-hold  upon  the  State.  Naturally  the  machine 
element  in  the  Legislature  was  prepared  always  to  rally 
to  the  defense  of  the  Commission,  and  the  defense  was 
necessary,  for  the  Commission  is  vulnerable,  and  was 
attacked  at  many  points. 

The  Commission  is  perhaps  the  most  extraordinary 
institution  in  the  State.  At  its  head  is  General  George 
Stone,  one-time  chairman  of  the  Republican  State  Cen- 
tral Committee.  At  its  tail  is  Jake  Steppacher,  another 
one-time  potent  politician  who  has  passed  the  days 
of  his  usefulness.  Between  Stone  at  the  lead  and  Step- 
pacher at  the  tail,  is  an  astonishing  array  of  formerly 
prominent  politicians,  as  well  as  politicians  who  are  de- 
cidedly in  the  present.  In  fact,  the  Fish  and  Game  Com- 
mission is  fast  becoming  one  of  the  most  potent  adjuncts 
to  the  State  political  machine,  that  strictly  non-partisan 


248  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

organization  which  guards  the  interests  of  the  tender- 
loin, the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  the  race- 
track gamblers,  their  associates  and  allies,  and  which 
rather  presumptuously  assumes  to  be  the  Republican 
Party  of  California. 

One  of  the  features  of  the  session  of  1909  was  the 
keen  little  fight  of  the  anti-machine  members  of  the 
Legislature  to  restore  the  Fish  and  Game  Commission 
to  its  one-time  simplicity,  legitimacy  and  usefulness,  and 
the  efforts  of  the  machine  members  to  prevent  this. 

Up  to  two  years  ago,  under  the  name  of  Fish  Com- 
mission, the  now  Fish  and  Game  Commission  did  most 
admirable  work  on  an  allowance  of  about  $50,000.  So 
far  as  the  writer  can  ascertain,  the  Commission's  income 
up  to  1907  never  exceeded  $54,000  in  any  one  year; 
usually  it  was  a  trifle  under  $50,000. 

But  in  1907  a  tax  of  $1  a  year  was  imposed  upon  all 
citizens  of  California  who  wished  to  go  hunting.  Citi- 
zens of  other  States,  wishing  to  hunt  in  California,  are 
under  the  same  law  taxed  $10  a  year,  while  foreigners 
are  taxed  $25.  The  law  provides  that  the  income  thus 
raised  be  turned  over  to  the  Fish  Commission. 

The  first  year  that  the  law  was  in  force,  the  Commis- 
sion received  $116,579  on  account  of  it.  This,  with 
moneys  received  from  State  appropriations,  fines  col- 
lected and  the  like,  swelled  the  Commission's  income  for 
that  year,  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908,  to  $184,- 
467.70,  an  increase  of  more  that  $130,000  from  the 
previous  fiscal  year. 

For  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908,  the  cost  of 
conducting  the  Governor's  office,  including  the  Governor's 


Fish  and  Game  Bills  249 

salary,  the  salaries  of  his  secretaries  and  clerks,  station- 
ery, postage  stamps,  secret  service,  everything  in  a  word 
in  connection  with  the  office,  was  $32,377. 

In  the  same  way  the  expense  of  conducting  the 
State  Controller's  office  was  $23,417;  of  the  State  Treas- 
urer's office,  $16,751 ;  of  the  Attorney  General's  office, 
$33,082 ;  of  the  Surveyor  General's  office,  $20,679 ;  of  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Schools'  office,  $22,380. 

But  the  General  Stone  captained — or  perhaps  gener- 
aled — Fish  Commission  had  for  that  year  a  modest  bit  of 
$184,467.  The  Fish  Commission  then,  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1908,  cost  California  almost  six 
times  as  much  as  did  the  Governor's  office,  eight 
times  as  much  as  did  the  Controller's  office,  eleven 
times  as  much  as  did  the  State  Treasurer's  office, 
almost  six  times  as  much  as  did  the  Attorney  General's 
office,  more  than  nine  times  as  much  as  the  Surveyor 
General's  office,  and  eight  times  as  much  as  did  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Instruction.  And  let  it  be  borne  in 
mind  that  this  does  not  include  the  sums  which  the  va- 
rious counties  paid  for  game  wardens  and  for  local  pro- 
tection of  game,  the  best  protection,  by  the  way,  and  the 
most  practical. 

The  $184,467,  did  not  go  to  the  counties.  It  went 
exclusively  to  General  Stone's  Commission.  It  will  be 
seen  that  General  Stone's  Commission  has  a  very  good 
thing  of  it. 

Another  surprising  feature  of  the  Stone-Generaled 
Commission  .is  that  there  is  little  check  upon  its  expendi- 
tures. If  the  Governor  wishes  to  raise  the  salary  of  his 
secretary  or  one  of  his  stenographers  he  must  appeal  to 


250  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

the  Legislature  for  permission.  The  State  Controller, 
the  State  Treasurer,  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  State 
Superintendent  of  Schools,  and  so  on  down  the  list  of 
State  officials,  are  powerless  to  increase  the  salary  of 
an  assistant  or  of  a  clerk,  or  of  an  office  boy,  without  leg- 
islative sanction. 

But  not  so  General  Stone's  Commission.  The  Com- 
mission is  left  to  do  pretty  much  as  it  pleases  with  its 
income.  So,  recently,  without  saying  a  word  to  any- 
body, it  increased  the  salary  of  one  of  its  deputies  (Vog- 
elsang) from  $200  to  $300  a  month.  Three  hundred  dol- 
lars a  month  is  $3600  a  year.  Up  to  this  year  the  salary 
of  the  State  Controller,  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  the 
State  Treasurer,  of  the  Surveyor  General,  of  the  Super- 
intendent of  Public  Instruction,  etc.,  was  only  $3,000  a 
year.  So  it  will  be  seen  that  one  of  General  Stone's 
Deputies  was  drawing  $600  a  year  more  salary  from  the 
State  than  the  elected  State  officials. 

Jake  Steppacher  and  other  politicians,  finding  easy 
berths  in  the  Commission,  were  also  granted  generous 
salary  increases. 

But  in  ways  other  than  generous  increase  in  the  sal- 
aries of  its  deputies  has  the  Fish  Commission  shown  its 
kingly  independence.  The  law  provides  that  each  State 
official  and  Commission  shall,  biennially,  in  the  Septem- 
ber before  the  Legislature  convenes,  file  with  the  .Gov- 
ernor a  report  of  its  activities  and  expenditures.  This 
enables  the  Governor  to  make  such  recommendations  as 
ne  may  deem  necessary  in  his  message  to  the  Legis- 
lature. The  Controller,  Attorney  General,  in  fact  all 
the  State  officials  and  departments,  observed  the  law  last 


Fish  and  Game  Bills  251 

September  with  but  one  exception.  The  Fish  Commis- 
sion, costing  the  State  from  six  to  eleven  times  more 
money  that  the  State  departments,  did  not  file  a  report 
with  the  Governor. 

The  fact  that  the  Commission  had  filed  no  report  in 
September,  the  generous  increase  in  salaries  of  its 
deputies,  alleged  instances  of  arbitrary  conduct  of  its 
representatives,  resulted  in  a  resolution  being  introduced 
by  Assemblyman  Harry  Polsley,  demanding  that  the 
Commission  be  made  the  subject  of  legislative  inquiry. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Assembly  Com- 
mittee on  Fish  and  Game,  a  committee  notoriously  in 
sympathy  with  the  Commission.  The  Committee  held  a 
sort  of  preliminary  hearing  which  resulted  in  a  general 
whitewashing.100  Polsley  made  out  what  was  generally 
regarded  as  a  prima  facie  case  against  the  Commission, 
but  the  Committee  did  not  choose  to  consider  it  such,  and 
so  the  investigation  got  no  further. 100a 


100  That  the  Fish  and  Game  Committee  would  whitewash  the 
Commission  was  recognized  from  the  first.  Even  members  of 
the  machine  who  stand  for  genuine  game  protection  objected 
to  this  committee  making  the  investigation.  When  the  -motion  was 
made  to  refer  the  resolution  to  this  committee,  Assemblyman 
Greer  of  Sacramento,  took  the  floor  to  protest: 

"It  is  useless  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Committee  on  Fish  and 
Game,"  said  Greer,  "for  we  all  know  what  that  committee  will 
do.  We'll  get  no  action  there.  Let  it  go  to  some  committee 
that  will  give  it  consideration." 

lOOa  The  Fish  and  Game  Commission  was  very  bitter  against 
Polsley  and  all  who  approved  his  course.  Because  of  the  inci- 
dent, Game  Warden  Welch  of  Santa  Cruz  County  lost  his  posi- 
tion. Welch  was  a  county  official,  paid  by  the  county.  The 
Commission  complained  that  he  had  written  a  letter  to  Polsley 
commending  the  Assemblyman  for  his  effort  to  secure  a  report 
from  the  Commission.  Santa  Cruz  County  receives  a  monthly 
stipend  from  the  Commission  toward  the  support  of  the  Brookdale 
hatchery.  The  writer  is  reliably  informed  that  one  of  the  Com- 
missioners stated  that  the  Commission  would  do  nothing  for  Santa 
Cruz  County  so  long  as  "that  man  Welch"  remained  in  office. 
Welch  was  removed  by  the  Supervisors.  Welch  has  a  national - 
wide  reputation  as  a  game  warden,  and  such  papers  as  the  "For- 


252  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

But  it  was  noticeable  after  the  "preliminary  hearing" 
that  the  advocates  of  the  Fish  Commission  measures  did 
not  show  up  so  sprightly  confident  of  their  passage  as 
before.  Polsley's  efforts  were  by  no  means  lost.  Many 
measures  intended  to  strengthen  the  already  giganti- 
cally strong  Commission  failed  of  passage,  or  had  their 
viciousness  amended  out  of  them,  which,  had  it  not  been 
for  Polsley's  efforts,  might  have  become  laws. 

The  most  important  of  these  was  Senate  Bill  741. 
The  measure  as  originally  introduced  by  Senator  Willis 
provided  that  "every  person  in  the  State  of  California, 
who  hunts,  pursues  or  kills  any  of  the  wild  birds  or 
animals,  excepting  predatory  birds  or  animals,  or  fishes 
for  or  catches  with  hook  and  line  any  of  the  protected 
fish  of  this  State,  without  first  procuring  a  license  there- 
for, as  provided  in  this  Act,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor." 

Had  the  act  become  a  law  as  introduced,  not  only 
those  who  hunt,  but  those  who  fish,  would  have  been 
obliged  to  pay  one  dollar  for  a  license.  Thus,  if  a 
family  of  father,  mother  and  three  children  wanted  to 
go  fishing,  they  would  first  have  had  to  pay  five  dollars 
for  the  privilege. 

The  writer  has  it  from  a  gentleman  who  has  made 
careful  study  of  the  Fish  Commission  and  its  ways  that 
the  licensing  of  amateur  fishers  would  have  increased 

est  and  Stream,"  New  York,  and  "Sports  Afield,"  Chicago,  have 
joined  the  California  press  in  denunciation  of  his  dismissal. 

As  these  pages  are  going  through  the  press,  word  comes  from 
Santa  Cruz  that  Welch  has  been  reinstated  by  Judge  Lucas  P. 
Smith  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Santa  Cruz  County. 

In  summarizing  his  findings,  Judge  Smith  holds  that  the  local 
Board  of  Supervisors  exceeded  its  legal  power  in  declaring  vacant 
the  office  of  voluntary  warden,  which  Welch  held;  exceeded  its 
legal  authority  in  removing  Welch  without  specific  charges  being 
prepared,  notice  served  on  him  and  an  opportunity  given  for  a 
hearing. 


Fish  and  Game  Bills  253 

the  income  of  the  Fish  and  Game  Commission  $150,000 
a  year.  This,  with  the  income  already  enjoyed  by  the 
Commission  of  $184,000  a  year,  would  have  swelled  its 
annual  income  to  more  than  $330,000.  This  sum  is  $90,- 
000  more  than  it  cost  to  maintain  the  Stockton  Hospital 
for  the  Insane  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908; 
$125,000  more  than  the  maintenance  of  the  Agnews 
Asylum  for  that  year;  $122,000  more  than  the  cost  of  the 
maintenance  of  the  Folsom  State  Prison.  The  Fish  and 
Game  Commission  was  scarcely  modest  in  its  demands.101 

Naturally,  the  backers  of  the  Fish  and  Game  Com- 
mission made  a  hard  fight  for  the  measure's  passage.  But 
in  spite  of  their  efforts  they  could  not  edge  it  through 
the  Senate  until  March  3d.  In  the  Assembly,  the  meas- 
ure met  genuine  opposition. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Fish  and  Game  of 
course  recommended  it  for  passage,  and  on  March  15th, 
after  a  hot  fight,  it  actually  passed  the  Assembly.  But 
Cattell  gave  notice  of  reconsideration.  Incidentally,  Gov- 
ernor Gillett  let  it  be  known  that  he  would  veto  any 
measure  that  required  amateur  fishermen  to  pay  license. 
This  was  a  damper  upon  the  Fish  Commission  crowd. 
When  Cattell  called  the  bill  up  for  reconsideration  it  was 
reconsidered  and  defeated.  However,  Leeds  accepted  an 
amendment  which  struck  out  the  clause  which  provided 
that  amateur  fishermen  must  pay  a  license  tax.  On 
Leeds'  motion  the  next  day,  the  amended  bill  was  re- 
considered and  passed. 

101  All  sorts  of  estimates  have  been  made  of  the  income  that 
would  have  been  enjoyed  by  the  Fish  and  Game  Commission,  had 
this  bill  become  a  law.  The  lowest  that  the  writer  knows  of. 
made  by  a  disinterested  person,  places  the  increase  at  $50,000  a 
year. 


254  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

The  three  Fish  and  Game  Commissioners  serve  with- 
out salary.  Their  compensation  comes  from  the  pleasure 
of  disbursing  upwards  of  $200,000  a  year,  what  political 
prestige  there  may  be  in  it,  and  rather  generous  expense 
money.102  But  a  bill  was  introduced  to  give  each  Com- 
missioner a  salary  of  $3,000  a  year.  The  measure  did 
not  become  law,  for  which  the  writer  believes  much 
credit  is  due  Assemblymen  Polsley  of  Red  Bluff.  The 
State  was  thus  saved  $9,000  a  year.  General  Stone  and 
his  associates  are  just  that  amount  out  of  pocket.  They 
have,  however,  given  no  indication  of  resigning  their 
offices  because  the  salary  has  been  denied  them. 

But  if  the  Fish  and  Game  Commission  was  unsuc- 
cessful in  increasing  its  revenue  and  putting  through 
other  measures  from  the  standpoint  of  its  members  ad- 
vantageous, its  opponents  were  quite  as  unsuccessful  in 
their  attacks  upon  the  Commission.  Like  the  panther 
cat  that  guards  her  young,  the  agents  of  the  Commis- 
sion fought  to  retain  the  advantages  which  they  had  se- 
cured in  1907,  and  were  generally  successful. 

The  chief  of  the  attacks  was  that  of  Assemblyman 
Polsley,  author  of  Assembly  Bill  433.  This  bill  wasn't 
very  long,  contained  less  than  five  lines,  in  fact,  and  just 
forty-three  words,  but  its  passage  would  have  saved 
the  people  of  California  more  than  $100,000  a  year,  or 
almost  as  much  as  it  costs  the  State  to  run  the  Gov- 
ernor's office,  the  Controller's  office,  the  State  Treasur- 
er's office  and  the  office  of  State  Superintendent  of 

102  Some  of  the  Commission's  expense  accounts  on  file  with  the 
State  Controller  are  curiosities.  For  example,  General  Stone  when 
he  is  on  commission  business  taxes  the  fund  $1  for  breakfast, 
$1  for  lunch,  $1  for  dinner.  It  thus  costs  the  Commission  three 
annual  hunter's  licenses  to  feed  General  Stone  for  a  day. 


Fish  and  Game  Bills  255 

Schools  combined.  Assembly  Bill  433  repealed  the  law 
of  1907,  under  which  hunters  are  required  to  pay  the 
Fish  and  Game  Commission  for  the  privilege  of  going 
hunting.  The  bill  was  introduced  January  15th.  It  was 
referred  to  the  notorious  Assembly  Committee  on  Fish 
and  Game.  There  it  was  held  until  March  10th.  It  was 
then  referred  back  to  the  Assembly  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  it  "do  not  pass."  That  settled  Assembly  Bill 
433. 

Another  measure  which  caused  the  agents  of  the 
Fish  Commission  much  worry  was  introduced  in  the 
Assembly  by  Preston  and  in  trie  Senate  by  Sanford. 
This  bill  provided  that  $50,000  should  be  paid  out  of  the 
Fish  and  Game  Commission  fund  each  yea'r  to  be  used 
in  paying  bounties  for  exterminating  coyotes.  This 
would  have  left  the  Commission  only  about  $130,000  a 
year.  Naturally,  the  agents  of  the  Commission  resented 
the  raid  on  their  funds.  The  measure  was  referred  to 
the  Assembly  Committee  on  Fish  and  Game.  This  was 
on  January  18th.  And  it  never  was  heard  of  after. 

The  companion  Senate  measure,  introduced  by  San- 
ford,  got  further,  but  not  much.  The  Senate  Commit- 
tee reported  it  "without  recommendation."  But  even 
so,  it  passed  second  reading  and  went  to  engrossment 
and  third  reading.  There  it  languished.  On  March 
18th  it  was  withdrawn  by  its  author. 

Another  measure  which  gave  the  Commissioners  a 
deal  of  worry  was  one  introduced  by  Johnson  of  Placer, 
which  provided  that  to  each  hunter  who  took  fifty  blue 
jay  heads  to  the  County's  Clerk's  office  should  be  issued 
a  hunter's  license  free.  It  was  thought  that  this  would 


256  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

encourage  boys  to  kill  blue  jays  for  the  hunter's  license 
prize,  value  one  dollar.  But  General  Stone  could  not  see 
it  that  way. 

"If  this  bill  becomes  a  law,"  said  General  Stone,  "we 
shall  have  to  retrench  somewhere." 

The  bill  didn't  become  a  law,  and  the  Fish  and  Game 
Commission  was  saved. 

But  the  most  "unkindest  cut  of  all"  came  when  the 
Assembly  attempted  to  break  into  that  sacred  Fish  and 
Game  Commission  fund  by  way  of  resolution.  The  As- 
sembly actually  adopted  a  resolution  calling  for  a  Com- 
mission to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  feasibility  of  dividing  the  State  into 
game  districts,  and  generously  providing  $5,000  out  of  the 
Fish  Commission  fund  for  that  purpose.  Naturally  the 
agents  of  the  Fish  Commission  were  scandalized  at  this 
proposed  reckless  expenditure  of  moneys  from  their  fund 
by  somebody  else.  But  they  were  powerless.  The  reso- 
lution went  through. 

Rather  late  in  the  session  the  Assembly  discovered 
that  under  the  law  it  cannot  "resolute"  money  out  of 
any  fund  other  than  the  Assembly  contingent  fund.  The 
resolution  was  not,  therefore,  worth  the  paper  it  was 
printed  on.  Once  again  the  sacred  Fish  Commission 
fund  was  saved. 

But  the  Assembly  could  switch  money  out  of  the 
fund  by  legislative  enactment,  and  a  bill  covering  the 
same  ground  as  the  resolution  was  introduced^without 
delay. 

The  measure  passed  the  Assembly  but  did  not  reach 
the  Senate  until  March  22d,  two  days  before  adjourn- 


Fish  and  Game  Bills  257 

ment.     That  was  very  late  for  such  a  measure,  but  a 
heroic  effort  was  made  to  secure 'its  passage. 

On  Estudillo's  motion,  an  attempt  was  made  to  sus- 
pend the  State  Constitution,  declare  the  bill  a  matter  of 
special  urgency,  and  pass  it  forthwith.  But  the  motion 
failed.  Again  did  the  Fish  Commission  escape  a  raid  on 
its  fund. 

Senator  Walker  and  Assemblyman  Rutherford  intro- 
duced measures  providing  for  a  distribution  of  the  fund 
with  counties,  which  at  any  rate  looked  pretty  good  to 
the  counties,  although  the  agents  of  the  Fish  Commis- 
sion were  not  pleased  at  all. 

The  bills  provided  that  one-half  of  the  moneys  col- 
lected from  the  sale  of  hunters'  licenses,  and  on  account 
of  fines  for  infringement  of  the  State  game  laws,  should 
be  paid  to  the  counties  in  which  collected,  and  -the  bal- 
ance go  to  the  Fish  Commission  fund. 

Walker's  bill  was  introduced  on  January  8th.  It 
went  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Fish  and  Game  and 
was  never  heard  of  after. 

.  Rutherford's  bill  was  introduced  on  January  15th.  It 
went  to  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Fish  and  Game. 
Like  the  Walker  bill,  the  Rutherford  bill  was  lost  in 
committee  oblivion. 

Such,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  more  important  bills 
to  increase  and  to  decrease  the  Fish  Commission  fund, 
was  the  record  of  fish  and  game  legislation.  The  Fish 
and  Game  Commission — and  its  overgrown  fund — is  still 
with  us.  But  it  might  have  been  infinitely  worse.  Bad 
little  boys  who  play  hookey  from  Sunday-school  to  go 


258  Fish  and  Game  Bills 

fishing,  for  example,  might  have — in  addition  to  the 
other  frightful  penalties  imposed  on  them — been  com- 
pelled to  pay  a  license  tax  of  $1  for  the  privilege. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
THE  REWARDING  OF  THE  FAITHFUL. 

Senators  and  Assemblymen  Whose  Votes  Were  Cast 
Against  Reform  Measures  Given  State  and  Federal 
Positions  in  Some  Instances,  in  Others  Appointed  to 
Holdover  Committees  or  Sent  on  Trips  at  the  Ex- 
pense of  the  State. 

The  machine  has  many  ways  of  rewarding  the  faith- 
ful who  persist  until  the  end.  The  faithful  member  of 
Senate  or  Assembly  may  be  rewarded  by  a  Federal  ap- 
pointment (Senator  Bates  has  just  been  graciously  recog- 
nized in  this  way102a)  or  he  may  be  given  a  State  job 
(witness  Senator  Price  or  Assemblyman  Beardslee)  ;  or 
he  may  be  put  on  a  legislative  hold-over  committee  to  in- 
vestigate something,  or  to  represent  the  State  at  some- 
thing, or  to  prepare  some  kind  of  a  bill  to  be  introduced 
at  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature. 

This  last  is  perhaps  the  most  genteel  method  of  re- 
ward. It  entails  little  work,  gives  the  beneficiary  a  cer- 
tain distinction  and  pays  very  well. 

Nine  Senators  were  rewarded  in  this  way  in  the  clos- 
ing hours  of  the  session  of  1909.  There  might  have  been 
ten,  but  that  prince  of  "bandwagon"  Senators,  Welch, 
had  to  be  rewarded  twice,  so  but  nine  got  holdover  com- 
mitteeships.  They  are  Wolfe,  Welch,  Wright,  Willis, 
Leavitt,  Bills  (labeled  Republicans),  Kennedy,  Hare  and 

102a  As  these  forms  are  going  through  the  press,  word  comes 
that  Senator  "Willis  has  been  made  Assistant  United  States  Dis- 
trict Attorney  at  Los  Angeles.  See  Willis'  record,  Table  "A"  of 
the  appendix. 


260  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

Curtin  (labeled  Democrats).  The  names  of  the  nine  are 
not  unfamiliar.  With  the  exception  of  that  of  Curtin, 
their  votes  during  the  session  were  consistently  cast  on 
the  side  of  the  machine.  For  them  to  be  rewarded  came 
as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  machine  will  continue  to  reward  such  men  until 
the  people  take  the  Legislature  out  of  machine  hands. 
But  that  is  another  story. 

The  Legislative  Holdover  Committee  is  about  as  use- 
less a  thing  as  can  be  imagined.  This  is  very  well  illus- 
trated by  the  State's  experience  with  the  so-called  Har- 
bors Committee,  appointed  by  the  Legislature  of  1907  to 
inquire  into  harbor  conditions  throughout  the  State. 

The  committee  consisted  of  three  Senators  and  three 
Assemblymen.  The  Senators  managed  to  incur  expenses 
of  $2,524.20.  Assemblymen  were  more  modest.  Their 
expenses  were  only  $1,851.80,  making  a  total  expense 
charge  for  the  committee  of  $4,376. 

But  the  $4,376  covers  the  committee's  expenses  only, 
does  not  provide  compensation  for  the  committeemen. 
A  bill  appropriating  $6,000  for  that  purpose  was  intro- 
duced at  the  session  of  1909.  This  gave  the  committee- 
men  $1,000  each  for  their  services.  It  made  the  inves- 
tigation cost  the  State  $10,376. 102b 


102b  The  State  Constitution  provides  no  method  of  compensa- 
tion for  such  services.  The  providing  of  this  compensation,  there- 
fore, becomes  a  matter  of  great  delicacy.  It  is  done,  under  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  that  tribunal  cannot  go  back 
of  a  legislative  Act,  but  must  abide  by  the  wording  of  the  Act. 
The  appropriation  bills  to  compensate  the  members  for  their 
services  on  hold-over  Committees  are  worded  to  meet  the  opinion 
of  the  courts.  The  money  is  invariably  appropriated  "to  pay 
the  claim  of,"  etc.  The  Legislature  is,  according  to  the  courts, 
the  sole  judge  of  whether  the  alleged  claim  is  a  claim  and  not 
a  petition  for  a  gift.  The  "to-pay-the-claim-of"  bills  never  fail 
to  pull  down  the  money. 


Rewarding  the  Faithful  261 

The  Harbors  Committee — or  somebody  or  something 
else,  the  writer  is  not  sure  which — prepared  an  elab- 
orate report  of  the  committee's  findings.  But  owing 
to  a  surprising  blunder  that  involved  Senator  Wolfe 
most  curiously,  the  report  was  not  filed  until  March  23, 
the  day  before  the  Legislature  adjourned.  The  report 
was  ordered  printed  in  the  Journal,  but  it  did  not  appear 
in  the  Journal  of  the  23rd,  which  was  circulated  on  the 
morning  of  the  24th.  Instead,  was  a  note  to  the  effect 
that  it  would  appear  in  the  corrected  Journal.  So,  few 
knew  that  it  had  been  filed  at  all,  and  it  went  unnoticed 
by  the  daily  press. 

But  the  details  of  the  report 102c  were  known  to  the 
general  public  long  before  it  was  filed  with  the  Senate, 
and  its  provisions  made  Senator  Wolfe  appear  to  excep- 
tional disadvantage.  Wolfe  was  a  member  of  the  Har- 
bors Committee,  as  was  Senator  Wright.  Among  the 
recommendations  set  forth  in  the  report  as  originally 
prepared,  was  one  that  forty-four  blocks  only  of  land  be 
purchased  by  the  State  for  the  improvement  of  the  San 
Francisco  Harbor  at  Islais  Creek,  instead  of  the  sixty- 
three  blocks  necessary  for  practical  harbor  development. 

Senator  Wolfe  was  a  warm  advocate  of  the  sixty- 
three  block  plan  which  is  the  only  practical  plan,  by  the 
way,  and  shows  that  Senator  Wolfe  can  land  on  the  right 
side  of  things  occasionally.  But  it  was  very  discourag- 
ing for  Senator  Wolfe  to  be  confronted  with  the  unfiled 
report  of  his  own  Harbors  Committee,  endorsed  by  his 
own  signature  as  committeeman,  in  which  the  purchase 
of  only  forty-four  blocks  was  urged. 

102c   The  report  as   orignally  drawn,   and   as  it   was  signed  by 
Senator  Wolfe  and  his  associates. 


262  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

Senator  Wolfe's  defense  was  ingenious.  He  stated 
that  he  had  signed  the  report  as  a  matter  of  courtesy, 
not  really  knowing  what  it  contained.  The  incident  il- 
lustrates the  value  to  the  State  of  such  legislative  investi- 
gations. 

But  in  spite  of  the  curious  history  of  Wolfe's  Har- 
bors Committee,  he  was  given  another  holdover  com- 
mittee in  1909.  The  Senate — on  Wolfe's  motion — 
adopted  a  resolution  setting  aside  $5,000  to  meet  the  ex- 
penses of  a  holdover  committee  to  consist  of  three  mem- 
bers to  investigate  the  cause  of  recent  advances  in  the 
cost  of  foodstuffs.  Senators  Wolfe,  Welch  and  Hare  are 
honored  with  the  appointments.  Lieutenant-Governor 
Porter  appointed. 

Senator  Wolfe,  from  the  machine  standpoint,  certain- 
ly earned  the  distinction  thus  thrust  upon  him,  and  his 
share  of  the  money.  Senator  Wolfe  was  not  in  good 
health  during  the  session,  but  in  spite  of  his  indispo- 
sition he  managed  to  be  present  in  the  Senate  Chamber, 
where  often,  pale,  haggard  and  plainly  on  the  verge  of 
breakdown,  he  fought  valiantly  against  the  reform  meas- 
ures which  were  aimed  at  the  prestige  of  the  State  ma- 
chine, and  the  domination  of  the  tenderloin,  the  South- 
ern Pacific  Railroad,  the  racetrack  gamblers  and  allied 
interests  in  State  politics. 

Wolfe  led  the  fight  against  the  Walker-Otis  Anti- 
Gambling  bill,  against  the  Local  Option  bill,  against  the 
effective  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill,  against  the 
Direct  Primary  bill,  against  admitting  Senator  Bell  of 
Pasadena  to  the  Republican  caucus,  against  the  bill  to 
prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicants  within  a  mile  and  a  half 


Rewarding  the  Faithful  263 

c 

of  Stanford  University,  against  the  initiative  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  against  the  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution to  correct  ambiguities  as  to  the  powers  and  du- 
ties of  the  State  Railroad  Commission,  and  against  Bur- 
nett's resolution  for  the  investigation  of  the  cause  of  the 
increase  in  freight  rates  and  express  charges.  Senator 
Wolfe  also  led  the  fight  for  the  passage  of  the  Change 
of  Venue  bill. 

Curiously  enough,  Senator  Wolfe's  stock  argument, 
used  in  most  of  the  opposition  to  reform  measures,  was 
to  the  effect  that  if  such  measures  became  laws,  the  Re- 
publican party  in  California  would  be  undermined. 
Senator  Wolfe's  argument  had  great  weight  with  Re- 
publicans like  Leavitt  and  Weed  and  Democrats  like 
Hare  and  Kennedy.  For  the  "good  of  the  Republican 
party,"  these  gentlemen  generally  voted  as  Senator  Wolfe 
dictated. 

Senator  Welch,  the  second  member  of  the  Pure  Food 
Committee,  is  at  least  entitled  to  gracious  consideration 
at  the  hands  of  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  element.  Senator 
Welch  was  one  of  the  twenty-seven  Call-heralded  heroes 
who  defeated  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  element  in  the  first 
fight  on  the  Direct  Primary  bill  in  the  Senate.  And 
Senator  Wrelch  was  one  of  the  seven  heroes  who 
"flopped"  to  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  side  when  the  psychologi- 
cal moment  came.  Welch's  one  vote  in  the  final  struggle 
would  have  decided  the  Direct  Primary  fight  for  the  side 
of  the  reform  element.  But  when  the  reform  element 
needed  Welch  he  was  found  snugly  quartered  with  Wolfe 
and  Leavitt. 

Welch  voted  for  the  WTalker-Otis  bill,  but  he  was 


264  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

one  of  the  last  members  of  the  Senate  to  be  counted  for 
that  measure.  Indeed,  Welch  caught  the  rear  of  the 
bandwagon  on  that  issue  just  in  time. 

On  railroad  issues  Welch's  record  is  as  good  as  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railroad  could  wish.  He  voted  against 
the  adoption  of  the  practical  absolute  rate,  and  for  the 
impracticable  maximum  rate;  he  voted  for  the  ineffec- 
tive Wright  bill  and  against  the  effective  Stetson  bill. 
He  voted  against  the  Constitutional  Amendment  simply- 
fying  the  wording  of  the  Constitution  in  those  sections 
which  prescribe  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Railroad 
Commissioners. 

So  Senator  Welch  had  his  appointment  to  the  Food 
Investigation  Committee  due  him.  He  was  also  made 
member  of  the  Legislative  Committee  to  represent  the 
State  at  the  Alaska- Yukon  Exposition,  of  which  more 
later.  Thus  Senator  Welch  rounded  out  the  session  very 
satisfactorily  to  Senator  Welch  and  to  the  machine,  if  not 
to  the  State  of  California. 

Senator  Hare  is  down  in  the  legislative  records  as 
a  Democrat.  He  voted  on  most  measures  consistently 
under  the  lead  of  Wolfe  and  Leavitt.  His  appointment 
need  not,  therefore,  cause  surprise. 

When  the  Direct  Primary  bill  was  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Election  Laws,  Hare's  vote  was  with  those 
of  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  to  make  the  measure  as  ineffective 
as  possible.  Hare  was  among  the  thirteen  unworthies 
who  voted  against  the  measure  when  the  first  fight  was 
made  for  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate ;  he  was  among  the 
twenty  who  finally,  under  Wolfe's  leadership,  held  the 
measure  up  in  the  Senate  until  by  trick  it  could  be 


Rewarding  the  Faithful  265 

amended  to  the  machine's  liking.  Hare  was  one  of  the 
seven  Senators  who  voted  against  the  Walker-Otis  Anti- 
Gambling  bill.  He  was  one  of  those  who  voted  for  the 
passage  of  the  Change  of  Venue  bill. 

On  railroad  measures  Hare  voted  against  the  Stetson 
bill  and  for  the  Wright  bill,  against  the  absolute  rate  and 
for  the  maximum  rate.  He  voted  against  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  to  clear  up  the  alleged  ambi- 
guity regarding  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Railroad 
Commissioners. 

Lack  of  space  prevents  continuance  of  the  review 
of  Hare's  votes.  But  enough  has  been  said  to  show  that 
this  "Democrat"  was  entitled  to  the  honor  at  the  hands 
of  the  Performer,  Republican  Lieutenant  Governor 
Warren  Porter,  of  appointment  to  the  Holdover  Com- 
mittee which,  under  the  leadership  of  Senator  Eddie 
Wolfe,  will  investigate  the  cause  of  the  increase  in  the 
price  of  foodstuffs. 

But  a  far  more  desirable  appointment  was  to  the 
committee  which  is  to  represent  the  State  at  the  Alaska- 
Yukon  Pacific  Exposition.  By  concurrent  resolution  the 
Senate  and  Assembly  decided  that  seven  Senators,  seven 
Assemblymen,  one  Lieutenant  Governor  (Warren  Por- 
ter) and  one  Governor  (Gillett)  should  attend  the  ex- 
position at  the  State's  expense.  For  this  purpose  $7,000 
of  the  State's  money  has  been  provided. 

The  seven  Senators  appointed  by  Performer  Porter 
are  Wright,  Willis,  Welch,  Leavitt,  Bills,  Kennedy, 
Curtin. 

The  seven  Assemblymen  appointed  by  Speaker  Stan- 


266  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

ton  are  Transue,  Beardslee,  Leeds,  Hewitt,  McManus, 
McClellan  and  Schimtt. 

The  records  of  the  Senators  thus  honored  show  them 
worthy  the  machine's  consideration.  Their  votes  on  the 
banner  measures  before  the  Legislature  last  winter  were 
as  follows: 

Against  the  Walker-Otis  bill,  to  prohibit  poolselling 
and  bookmaking  (Anti-Gambling  bill) — Leavitt — 1. 

For  the  Walker-Otis  bill— Bills,  Curtin,  Kennedy, 
Willis,  Welch,  Wright— 6. 

Only  seven  Senators  voted  against  the  Walker-Otis 
bill.  Of  the  seven  Leavitt  is  given  the  Alaska  trip; 
Wolfe  and  Hare  are  put  on  the  Food  Investigation  Com- 
mittee. Thus  of  nine  Senators  who  got  on  holdover  com- 
mittees three  were  among  the  seven  who  voted  in  the 
interest  of  the  gambling  element. 

The  records  made  by  the  State  Senators  who  will  at- 
tend the  exposition  at  the  State's  expense  in  the  Direct 
Primary  fight  are  quite  as  suggestive.  When  the  first 
attempt  was  made  in  the  Senate  to  force  the  machine 
amendments  into  the  bill,  February  18,  the  seven  Sena- 
tors voted  as  follows: 

For  the  machine's  amendments — Bills,  Kennedy, 
Leavitt,  Willis. 

Against  the  machine's  amendments — Curtin,  Welch, 
Wright. 

Thirteen  Senators  on  February  18  voted  for  the 
machine's  amendments.  Of  their  number  Hare  and 
Wolfe  are  on  the  Food  Investigation  Committee;  Bills, 
Kennedy,  Leavitt  and  Willis  are  to  attend  the  exposition 


Rewarding  the  Faithful  267 

at  the  State's  expense.  Thus  six  of  the  thirteen  have  been 
rewarded. 

The  machine,  having  failed  to  amend  the  Direct 
Primary  bill  in  the  Senate,  amended  it  in  the  Assembly. 
When  the  measure  was  returned  to  the  Senate,  six  of  the 
seven  Senators  who  will  attend  the  exposition  voted  to 
concur  in  the  Assembly  amendments.  They  were,  Bills, 
Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Welch,  Willis  and  Wright.  Only  one 
of  the  seven  voted  against  the  machine  amendments, 
Curtin. 

The  records  of  the  seven  favored,  trip-taking  Sena- 
tors on  railroad  regulation  measures  are  as  follows : 

For  the  Wright  bill,  against  the  Stetson  bill;  for 
the  maximum  rate,  against  the  absolute  rate — Leavitt, 
Welch,  Willis,  Wright,  Bills,  Kennedy— 6. 

Against  the  Wright  bill,  for  the  Stetson  bill,  against 
the  maximum  rate,  for  the  absolute  rate — Curtin — 1. 

Against  the  constitutional  amendment  to  make  clear 
the  powers  and  duties  of  Railroad  Commissioners — 
Bills,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Welch,  Willis— 5. 

For  the  amendment — Curtin,  Wright — 2. 

Against  the  Burnett  resolution  calling  for  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  cause  for  an  increase  in  freight  rates — 
Bills,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Willis,  Wright— 5. 

For  the  resolution — 0. 

Absent  or  not  voting — Curtin,  Welch — 2. 

The  records  of  the  seven  on  the  Local  Option  bill 
and  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  are: 

Against  Local  Option— Leavitt,  Welch,  Willis,  Bills, 
Curtin,  Kennedy — 6. 

For  Local  Option — Wright — 1. 


268  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

For  the  Change  of  Venue  bill — Bills,  Leavitt,  Welch, 
Willis,  Wright— 5. 

Against  the  Change  of  Venue  bill — Curtin,  Kennedy 
—2. 

Kennedy,  to  be  sure,  voted  against  the  Change  of 
Venue  bill  when  that  measure  passed  the  Senate.  But 
Senator  Kennedy  was  unaccountably  absent  the  next 
morning  when  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  was  taken  up 
on  a  motion  for  reconsideration.  Because  of  Kennedy's 
absence,  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  measure  was  lost, 
and  its  defeat  prevented.  Senator  Kennedy  is  scarcely 
entitled  to  credit  for  being  recorded  on  the  right  side  of 
this  measure. 

Nine  Senators  are  included  in  the  two  hold-over  com- 
mittees which  are  under  consideration.  As  Wolfe  and 
Hare  invariably  voted  with  Leavitt,  it  will  be  seen  that 
eight  of  the  nine  voted  against  the  Stetson  bill  and  for 
the  Wright  bill;  seven  of  the  nine  voted  against  the 
Constitutional  amendment  to  make  plain  the  constitutional 
powers  and  duties  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners ;  seven 
of  the  nine  voted  against  investigating  the  cause  of  in- 
crease in  freight  and  express  rates  to  the  Pacific  Coast; 
eight  of  the  nine  voted  against  local  option ;  seven 
voted  for  the  Change  of  Venue  bill,  and  one  of  the  two 
others  as  good  as  voted  for  it,  although  on  record 
against  the  measure. 

As  Republican  Senators  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Cutten,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge  and 
Thompson,  who  were  invariably  on  the  right  side  of 
things,  look  upon  the  records  of  the  "Democrats"  and 
"Republicans"  included  among  the  nine  favored  receiv- 


Rewarding  the  Faithful  269 

ers  of  plums,  they  can  scarcely  be  blamed  for  demand- 
ing with  the  discouraged  little  boy — What's  the  use  of 
being  good,  anyhow? 

And  as  the  Democratic  Senators,  Caminetti,  Camp- 
bell, Cartwright,  Holohan,  Miller  and  Sanford,  who 
worked  with  the  anti-machine  Republicans  for  the  pass- 
age of  good  laws  and  the  defeat  of  bad  ones  look  upon  the 
favored  Hare  and  Kennedy  they  cannot  be  blamed  if  the 
same  question  occurs  to  them  also. 

The  indications  are  that  the  Senators  who  were  thus 
overlooked  will  have  "to  wait  for  theirs,"  until  The 
People  of  California,  and  not  the  machine,  award  the 
prizes  for  faithful  public  service. 

Of  the  seven  Assemblymen  who  will  attend  the 
Alaska- Yukon  Exposition,  one,  Hewitt,  voted  against  the 
machine  on  every  important  issue  that  came  up.  The 
other  six  are  a  spotted  lot. 

The  six — Beardslee,  Leeds,  McManus,  McClellan, 
Schmitt  and  Transue — voted  for  the  famous  "gag  rules" 
which  the  Assembly  rejected  by  a  vote  of  41  to  32.  In- 
deed, Beardslee  and  Transue  were  on  the  Committee  on 
Rules  which  the  Assembly,  when  it  rejected  the  Com- 
mittee's rules,  repudiated. 

In  the  fight  for  the  passage  of  the  Walker-Otis 
Anti-Gambling  bill,  two  of  the  six,  Leeds  and  Transue, 
managed  to  keep  their  records  straight.  On  the  six 
roll-calls  taken  on  the  measure  before  it  passed  the  As- 
sembly, Beardslee  voted  five  times  against  the  bill  and 
once  for  it ;  McManus  voted  six  times  against  it ;  Schmitt 
voted  five  times  against  it,  on  one  roll-call  he  did  not 


270  Rewarding  the  Faithful 

vote;  while  McClellan  voted  four  times  for  it  and  twice 
against. 

Five  of  the  six,  Beardslee,  Leeds,  McManus,  Mc- 
Clellan and  Schmitt  voted  against  forcing  out  of  the 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations  the  San  ford  resolution, 
which  called  for  a  government  line  of  steamers  from 
Panama  to  San  Francisco.  The  five  voted  for  the  John- 
son amendments  to  the  resolutions,  which  cut  out  all 
criticizing  reference  to  the  rate-boosting  combinations 
between  the  great  transportation  companies.  Transue 
was  absent  when  the  vote  to  force  the  resolution  out 
of  committee  was  taken.  But  he  was  present  to  vote  for 
the  Johnson  amendments. 

Five  of  the  six,  Leeds,  McManus,  McClellan,  Schmitt 
and  Transue,  voted  for  the  machine  amendments  to  the 
Direct  Primary  bill,  which  were  read  into  that  measure 
in  the  Assembly,  and  which  resulted  in  the  Senate  dead- 
lock over  the  measure.  Beardslee  voted  against  the 
amendments. 

Five  of  the  six — Beardslee,  Leeds,  McManus,  McClel- 
lan and  Transue — voted  against  the  Holohan  bill  to  re- 
move the  party  circle  from  the  election  ballot.  Schmitt 
did  not  vote  on  this  measure. 

Assemblyman  Hewitt  will,  at  the  Alaska- Yukon,  find 
himself  in  distinguished  company.  From  the  Wolfe- 
Leavitt- Johnson  standpoint,  he  is  the  only  one  of  his 
associates  who  cannot  be  said  to  have  earned  the  prefer- 
ment thrust  upon  him. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 
THE  HOLDOVER  SENATORS. 

Eleven  of  Them  May  Be  Counted  Upon  to  Vote  Against 
the  Machine  at  the  Session  of  1911,  Two  Are  Doubt- 
ful, One  Will  Probably  Vote  with  the  Majority,  While 
Six  May  Be  Counted  Upon  to  Support  Machine 
Policies. 

Twenty  of  the  120  members  who  sat  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  1909— half  of  the  forty  Senators— hold  over 
and  will  serve  in  the  Legislature  of  1911.  The  twenty 
constitute  the  strength  with  which  the  machine  and  the 
anti-machine  forces  will  enter  the  field  in  the  struggle 
for  control  of  the  Legislature  two  years  hence. 

The  machine  has,  long  before  this,  taken  stock  of 
those  twenty  holdover  Senators.  Machine  agents  un- 
questionably know  what  the  holdover  members  owe  and 
to  whom  indebted;  know  their  family  history;  know  the 
church  to  which  they  belong,  their  lodges,  their  likes, 
their  dislikes  and  their  prejudices;  know  how  they  can 
be  "reached"  if  vulnerable ;  know  how  they  can  be  "kept 
in  line"  if  already  tarred  with  the  machine  brush. 

But  the  plain  citizen,  not  within  the  charmed  circle  of 
machine  protection,  is  not  concerning  himself  much  about 
these  holdovers.  He  scarcely  knows  their  names.  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  not  2  per  cent  of  the  voters  of  Califor- 
nia could  off-hand  name  the  twenty  holdover  members 
of  the  Upper  House  of  the  Legislature. 


272  The  Holdover  Senators 

In  other  words,  the  machine  is  posted,  and  the  citizen 
is  not.  And  here  is  the  secret  of  much  of  the  machine's 
success.  In  its  campaign  for  control  of  affairs,  the  ma- 
chine knows  to  a  nicety  just  what  to  expect  from  men 
in  public  life;  the  plain  citizen  is  without  such  informa- 
tion. 

In  the  Appendix  will  be  found  a  table,  "Table  H," 
showing  the  votes  of  the  twenty  holdover  Senators  on 
sixteen  roll  calls.  Representative  citizens,  all  standing 
for  good  government,  may  differ  as  to  the  desirability 
or  undesirability  of  several  of  the  measures  included 
in  the  list.  But  by  and  large  the  average  normal  citi- 
zen will  hold  that  certain  of  the  sixteen  measures  are 
desirable  and  others  undesirable.  Thus  all  would  prob- 
ably agree  that  the  Change  of  Venue  bill  is  undesirable 
legislation,  and  declare  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Racetrack 
Gambling  measure  to  be  desirable,  although  they  might 
honestly  differ  on  the  Local  Option  bill. 

On  the  sixteen  roll  calls  the  twenty  holdover  Sena- 
tors cast  283  votes.  Of  the  283,  164  are  recorded  against 
what  the  normal  citizen  would  regard  as  bad  measures, 
or  for  what  the  normal  citizen  would  regard  as  good 
measures.  In  other  words,  speaking  broadly,  164  of  the 
283  votes  were  cast  against  machine  policies.  Only  119 
were  cast  with  the  machine.  In  other  words,  over  the 
whole  session,  on  what  may  be  fairly  considered  the 
most  important  roll  calls  taken  in  the  Senate,  the  hold- 
over Senators  cast  164  votes  against  the  machine  and 
only  119  votes  for  the  machine.  This  isn't  a  bad  show- 
ing to  start  with. 

The  showing  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  ninety- 


The  Holdover  Senators  273 

two  of  the  119  machine  votes  were  cast  by  eight  Sen- 
ators, Finn,  Wolfe,  Bills,  Martinelli,  Hurd,  Hare,  Lewis 
and  Welch.  Senator  Finn  of  San  Francisco  heads  the 
list  with  fifteen  of  these  negative  votes.  On  one  occasion 
Senator  Finn  didn't  vote.  After  Finn  comes  Wolfe,  also 
from  San  Francisco,  with  thirteen  of  the  ninety-two 
negative  or  machine  votes  to  his  credit  or  his  discredit; 
Bills  of  Sacramento  and  Martinelli  of  Marin  follow  with 
twelve  each ;  Hurd  of  Los  Angeles  with  eleven ;  Hare  of 
San  Francisco  and  Lewis  of  San  Joaquin  with  ten  each, 
and  Welch  of  San  Francisco  with  nine. 

This  leaves  twenty-seven  machine  votes  to  be  di- 
vided among  twelve  of  the  holdover  Senators,  about  two 
votes  on  an  average  each. 

Burnett  is  credited  with  seven  of  the  twenty-seven, 
which  reduces  the  number  to  twenty  for  eleven  Sena- 
tors. Of  the  twenty  votes,  seven  were  cast  in  the  two 
ballots  taken  on  the  Local  Option  issue,  again  the  bill; 
and  eight  were  cast  in  two  ballots  against  the  Holohan 
bill  to  remove  the  party  circle  from  the  election  ballot. 

Thus,  excluding  the  votes  on  local  option,  and  on 
the  Party  Circle  bill,  on  twelve  important  ballots,  eleven 
of  the  holdover  Senators  cast  only  five  votes  for  machine 
policies. 

The  eleven  are  Birdsall,  Campbell,  Cutten,  Estudillo, 
Holohan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thomp- 
son and  Walker. 

These  eleven  Senators,  as  judged  by  their  perform- 
ances at  the  session  just  closed,  may  be  depended  upon  to 
vote  for. good  bills  and  against  bad  ones  at  the  session 
of  1911. 


274  The  Holdover  Senators 

To  this  list  should  be  added  the  name  of  Burnett. 
Burnett  got  off  wrong  on  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regula- 
tion bill,  and  managed  to  land  with  the  Wolfe  element 
in  the  direct  primary  fight.  But  there  is  good  reason  to 
believe  that  Burnett  was  very  sick  of  his  company  before 
the  session  closed.  The  probabilities  are  that  Senator 
Burnett  feels  more  at  home  with  Senators  Stetson,  Stro- 
bridge,  Thompson  and  Cutten  than  with  Hare,  Finn  and 
Wolfe. 

Senator  Hurd  is  another  holdover  who  started  out 
very  well,  but  went  badly  astray  after  the  vote  on  the 
Railroad  Regulation  bills.  Like  Burnett,  Hurd  showed 
signs  toward  the  end  of  the  session  of  feeling  himself 
in  uncongenial  company.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  Hurd  at  the  next  session  will  be  found  voting  with 
the  Thompson-Stetson-Strobridge  element. 

Senator  Welch  will  be  found  voting  with  the  ma- 
jority. This  reduces  the  number  of  holdover  Senators 
who  can  be  counted  upon  to  accept  Wolfe's  leadership, 
machine  Senators,  if  you  like,  to  six.  The  line-up  of  the 
twenty  holdovers,  then,  would  on  this  basis  be  as  follows : 

Anti-machine — Birdsall,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker  (Repub- 
licans), Campbell,  Holohan  (Democrats) — 11. 

Doubtful— Burnett,  Hurd   (Republicans)— 2. 

With  the  majority — Welch  (Republican) — 1. 

Machine — Bills,  Finn,  Lewis,103  Martinelli,  Wolfe 
(Republicans),  Hare  (Democrat) — 6. 

103  Lewis  voted  with  the  anti-machine  element  in  the  Railroad 
Regulation  fight,  one  of  the  most  severe  tests  of  the  session.  Per- 
sons who  know  Lewis  well  stated  that  he  will,  if  the  anti-machine 
forces  be  effectively  organized  at  the  session  of  1911,  be  found 
against  the  machine.  It  is  "up  to  Senator  Lewis." 


The  Holdover  Senators  275 

On  this  basis  the  anti-machine  element  will  start  with 
all  the  advantage  in  the  struggle  for  control  of  the  Senate 
in  1911.  If  Burnett  and  Hurd  vote  with  the  eleven  anti- 
machine  Senators,  it  will  be  necessary  to  elect  only  eight 
anti-machine  Senators  that  the  reform  element  may  con- 
trol the  Senate.  This  will  mean  twenty-two  votes  for  the 
reform  element,  for  Welch,  if  he  is  to  be  judged  by  past 
performances,  will  be  found  with  the  majority. 

From  present  indications,  four  important  fights  will 
be  made  at  the  Legislative  session  of  1911. 

(1)  To  pass  an  effective  railroad  regulation  measure 
and  to  amend  those  sections  of  the  State  Constitution 
which  prescribe  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  Railroad 
Commissioners. 

(2)  To  amend  the  Direct  Primary  law  passed  at  the 
session  just  closed  to  meet  with  the  popular  demand  for 
an  effective  measure. 

(3)  To  grant  local  option  to  the  counties. 

(4)  To  adopt  an  amendment  to  the  State  Constitu- 
tion granting  the  initiative  to  the  electors  of  the  State. 

Significantly  enough,  the  line-up  of  the  holdover 
Senators  in  the  Direct  Primary  deadlock  of  the  last  ses- 
sion was  nine  to  eleven,  the  eleven  Senators  who  divide 
but  five  machine  votes  between  them  standing  out  against 
Wolfe  and  Leavift  for  an  effective  provision  for  the  se- 
lection of  United  States  Senators  by  State-wide  vote, 
while  the  six  machine  Senators,  the  "bandwagon"  Sen- 
ator and  the  two  doubtfuls,  voted  with  Wolfe  and 
Leavitt. 

But  the  probabilities  are  that  in  the  event  of  the  anti- 
machine  element  controlling  the  Senate  of  1911,  Bur- 


276  The  Holdover  Senators 

nett,  Httrd,  Lewis,  Martinelli  and  Welch  would  join 
with  the  reform  forces  to  make  necessary  amendments 
to  the  measure.  When  the  Direct  Primary  bill  was  first 
before  the  Senate,  these  five  Senators  united  with  the 
Good  Government  forces  and  assisted  in  defeating  the 
machine's  amendment.  When  the  bill  was  amended  in 
the  Assembly,  however,  the  five  flopped  to  the  machine 
side.  Indeed,  only  four  of  the  twenty  holdover  Senators 
voted  for  the  machine's  amendments  to  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill  when  the  measure  was  first  passed  upon  by 
the  Senate.  They  were  Bills,  Finn,  Hare  and  Wolfe. 

The  holdover  Senators  made  their  poorest  showing 
on  the  railroad  measures.  When  the  test  came  on  the 
Stetson  bill  the  twenty  holdovers  split  even,  ten  being 
for  the  effective  Stetson  bill,  ten  for  the  ineffective 
Wright  bill.  The  line-up  was  as  follows : 

For  the  Stetson  bill— Birdsall,  Campbell,  Cutten, 
Holohan,  Lewis,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson — 10. 

For  the  Wright  bill— Bills,  Burnett,  Estudillo,  Finn, 
Hare,  Kurd,  Martinelli,  Walker,  Welch,  Wolfe— 10. 

Lewis,  who  usually  voted  with  the  performers,  voted 
for  the  Stetson  bill.  But  the  reform  forces  lost  two 
votes,  those  of  Walker  and  Estudillo.  On  another  vote 
on  the  same  issue,  however,  Burnett,  Estudillo  and 
Walker  would  probably  be  found  with  the  anti-machine 
forces  supporting  an  effective  measure.  This  would 
make  the  vote  of  the  holdover  Senators,  thirteen  for 
effective  railroad  regulation,  and  seven  for  a  measure 
of  the  Wright  law  variety. 

The  holdovers  made  a  good  showing  on  the  Initiative 


The  Holdover  Senators  277 

amendment,  eleven  voting  for  it  and  five  against  it,  four 
not  voting  at  all.  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

For  the  Initiative — Birdsall,  Campbell,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Hare,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Thompson,  Walk- 
er, Welch— 11. 

Against  the  Initiative — Bills,  Hurd,  Lewis,  Martinelli, 
Wolfe— 5. 

Not  voting — Burnett,  Finn,  Holohan,  Strobridge — 4. 

Of  the  four  who  did  not  vote,  three,  Burnett,  Holo- 
han and  Strobridge,  would  have  voted  for  the  amend- 
ment. Finn  would  probably  have  voted  against  it.  This 
would  have  made  the  vote  fourteen  to  six  in  the  amend- 
ment's favor.  It  will  be  seen  that  those  who  would  have 
the  initiative  granted  the  people,  have  a  good  start  for 
the  next  session. 

The  outlook  for  local  option  is  not  so  reassuring.  Of 
the  holdover  Senators  who  ordinarily  were  for  meas- 
ures which  give  the  people  a  voice  in  the  management  of 
public  affairs,  Birdsall,  Holohan,  Rush  and  Strobridge 
were  unalterably  opposed  to  the  local  option  idea.  The 
six  machine  Senators,  of  course,  opposed  it,  which  with 
the  votes  of  Burnett,  Welch  and  Hurd  placed  thirteen  of 
the  twenty  holdover  Senators  against  the  measure. 

Six  of  the  holdovers  voted  for  the  Local  Option  bill — 
Campbell,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Roseberry,  Thompson  and 
Walker. 

Stetson  was  absent  and  did  not  vote.  He,  however, 
favored  the  bill.  His  vote  would  have  made  it  13  to  7. 
Thus  on  the  vote  on  their  bill  at  the  last  session,  the 
local  option  forces  have  seven  of  the  holdover  Senators 
with  them,  and  thirteen  against. 


278  The  Holdover  Senators 

On  the  other  hand,  seventeen  of  the  holdover  Sena- 
tors voted  for  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
bill,  while  only  three,  Finn,  Hare  and  Wolfe,  voted 
against  it.  Thus  on  the  moral  issue,  as  well  as  the  po- 
litical and  the  industrial,  the  anti-machine  element  is 
stronger  in  the  holdover  delegation  in  the  Senate  than 
is  the  machine.  It  rests  with  the  good  citizenship  of 
California  to  maintain  its  advantage  by  electing  to  the 
Senate  in  1910,  men  who  will  stand  with  the  majority 
of  the  holdover  members  for  the  passage  of  good  and 
the  defeat  of  vicious  measures. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
THE  RETIRING  SENATORS. 

Of  the  Twenty  Whose  Terms  of  Office  Will  Have  Ex- 
pired, the  Machine  Loses  Eleven,  the  Anti-Machine 
Element  Seven — Two  Who  Voted  With  the  Machine 
on  Occasion  Were  Usually  on  the  Side  of  Good 
Government. 

Twenty  of  the  forty  Senators  who  sat  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  1909,  must,  if  they  sit  in  the  Legislature  of 
1911,  be  re-elected  at  the  general  elections  in  Novem- 
ber 1910.  They  are:  Senators  Anthony  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, Bates  of  Alameda,  Bell  of  Pasadena,  Black  of 
Santa  Clara,  Boynton  of  Yuba,  Caminetti  of  Amador, 
Cartwright  of  Fresno,  Curtin  of  Tuolumne,  Hartman  of 
San  Francisco,  Kennedy  of  San  Francisco,  Leavitt  of 
Alameda,  McCartney  of  Los  Angeles,  Miller  of  Kern, 
Price  of  Sonoma,  Reily  of  San  Francisco,  Sanford  of 
Mendocino,  Savage  of  Los  Angeles,  Weed  of  Siskiyou, 
Willis  of  San  Bernardino  and  Wright  of  San  Diego. 

By  consulting  Table  A  of  the  Appendix,  it  will  be 
seen  that  on  sixteen  roll  calls  the  forty  members  of  the 
Senate  of  1909  voted  570  times.  Of  the  570  votes  311 
were  cast  against  what  are  regarded  as  machine  policies ; 
259  for  such  policies.  Of  the  311  anti-machine  votes, 
164  were  cast  by  holdover  Senators,  and  were  consid- 
ered in  the  last  chapter,  while  147  were  cast  by  Senators 
whose  successors  will  be  elected  in  1910.  Thus  it  will 


280  The  Retiring  Senators 

be  seen,  that  on  this  basis,  more  desirable  Senators  will 
hold  over  than  those  whose  terms  of  office  will  have 
expired  before  the  next  Legislature  convenes. 

On  the  basis  of  the  machine  votes  the  result  is  as 
satisfactory.  On  the  sixteen  roll  calls,  259  machine  votes 
were  cast.  Of  these  140  were  cast  by  the  retiring  Sen- 
ators, and  only  119  by  those  who  will  hold  over,  and  who 
will  sit  in  the  Legislature  of  1911.  So,  on  the  whole, 
the  machine  loses  and  the  people  gain  in  the  retirement 
of  the  twenty  Senators. 

In  point  of  numbers  the  result  is  as  satisfactory.  The 
machine  will  lose  eleven  Senators:  Bates,  Hartman, 
Kennedy,  Leavitt,  McCartney,  Price,  Reily,  Savage, 
Weed,  Willis  and  Wright;  while  the  anti-machine  forces 
will  lose  only  seven  who  can  be  counted  constantly  for 
reform  policies:  Bell,  Black,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Cart- 
wright,  Miller  and  Sanford. 

This  leaves  only  Anthony  and  Curtin  to  be  accounted 
for.  Both  these  men  stood  out  against  the  machine's 
amendments  to  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  Anthony  in  par- 
ticular standing  against  the  severest  pressure  that  could 
be  brought  to  compel  him  to  vote  against  the  interests 
of  his  constituents  and  of  the  State.  But  Anthony  could 
not  be  moved.  On  the  railroad  measures,  however,  An- 
thony voted  with  the  machine.  But  he  voted  for  the 
Walker-Otis  bill,  and,  generally  speaking,  for  all  meas- 
ures which  made  for  political  reforms.  With  any  sort 
of  organization  of  the  reform  forces,  Anthony  could  be 
counted  upon  as  safe  for  reform.  His  record  on  the 
Direct  Primary  bill  certainly  entitles  him  to  the  highest 
consideration. 


The  Retiring  Senators  281 

Curtin  also  was  as  a  general  thing  with  the  reform 
element.  He  voted,  however,  against  the  bill  to  do  away 
with  the  party  circle  and  he  voted  against  the  Local  Op- 
tion bill,  but  in  so  doing  he  merely  followed  the  lead  of 
such  men  as  Birdsall,  who,  while  out  and  out  against  the 
machine,  were  at  the  same  time  against  local  option  and 
lukewarm  on  ballot  reform.  Birdsall,  however,  finally 
voted  for  the  bill  to  remove  the  party  circle  from  the 
election  ballot,  although  he  had  on  the  first  ballot  voted 
against  the  bill.  Curtin  did  not,  however,  change  his 
vote.  But  Curtin  did  vote  against  the  Initiative  Amend- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  Curtin's  record  on  the  Direct 
Primary  bill,  on  the  Railroad  Regulation  bills,  and  on 
the  Anti-Gambling  bill  is  all  that  could  be  desired. 

While  the  retirement  of  all  the  Senators  who  do  not 
hold  over  would  strengthen  the  reform  element  in  the 
Senate,  nevertheless  the  State  can  ill  afford  to  lose  the 
services  of  the  seven  who  stood  out  so  valiantly  against 
machine  policies.  Senator  Bell  heads  the  list,  with  Cami- 
netti,  Black,  Boynton  and  Sanford  close  seconds. 

Senator  Bell  not  only  made  the  best  record  made  in 
the  Senate  of  1909,  but  he  made  the  best  record  of  the 
Senate  of  1907.  Conscientious,  fully  awake  to  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  his  position,  alive  to  the  tricks  of  the 
machine  leaders,  in  constant  attendance,  Senator  Bell 
proved  himself  during  the  two  sessions  that  he  has  served 
in  the  Senate,  a  power  for  good  government.  His  ab- 
sence from  the  session  of  1911  would  be  a  loss  to  the 
State. 

Senators  Black  and  Boynton  at  the  session  of  1909 
made  records  quite  as  good  as  that  made  by  Senator  Bell. 


282  The  Retiring  Senators 

On  the  sixteen  roll  calls  taken  as  tests  of  the  standing 
of  the  several  Senators,  Black  voted  but  once  against 
reform  policies.  On  the  first  ballot  on  the  Party  Circle 
bill  he  voted  against  the  measure,  but  the  day  following 
corrected  his  mistake  by  voting  for  the  measure.  Boyn- 
ton  voted  to  return  the  Local  Option  bill  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  but  at  the  final  test  his  vote  was  recorded 
for  the  bill.103a  Thus  neither  of  the  two  Senators  can  be 
said  to  have  voted  with  the  machine  even  on  compara- 
tively unimportant  issues. 

Senator  Carninetti  probably  gave  the  machine  more 
worry  during  the  session  than  any  other  one  Senator. 
Caminetti  has  a  way  of  saying  out  loud  what  his  anti- 
machine  associates  are  thinking,  which  is  not  at  all  pop- 
ular with  the  machine.  True  to  principle,  he,  a  Demo- 
crat, voted  for  United  States  Senator  Perkins  because, 
from  Caminetti's  view-point,  no  other  candidate  came 
so  near  to  being  the  popular  choice  of  the  people  as  Per- 
kins, and  Caminetti  holds  that  the  people  and  not  the 
Legislature  should  select  the  United  States  Senator. 
The  machine  was  glad  of  Caminetti's  vote  for  Perkins, 
but  was  not  at  all  pleased  with  the  departure  of  a  Demo- 
crat voting  for  a  Republican.  Caminetti's  course  con- 
tinued in  by  all  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  the 
machine  would  lose  its  monopoly  of  Federal  Senator- 
making. 

Caminetti's  record  is  admirable.     To  be  sure,  he  op- 


103a  Senator  Boynton  was  a  consistent  supporter  of  the 
Local  Option  bill  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  session. 
He  held,  however,  that  the  bill  as  originally  drawn  was  not  in 
proper  form,  and  explained  that  he  voted  to  have  the  bill  re- 
turned to  the  committee  that  amendments,  which  he  deemed 
necessary,  could  be  made. 


The  Retiring  Senators  283 

posed  Local  Option,  but  he  fought  as  few  others  fought 
for  an  effective  Direct  Primary  law,  for  effective  rail- 
road regulation,  in  fact  for  practically  all  the  reform 
policies  which  the  anti-machine  forces  advocated  and  the 
machine  opposed.  Senator  Sanford  also  voted  for  and 
worked  for  reform  policies.  Like  Caminetti,  however, 
he  opposed  the  Local  Option  bill  and  voted  against  it. 
Senator  Miller,  on  the  other  hand,  supported  the  Local 
Option  bill,  but  slipped  more  seriously  than  did  either 
Caminetti  or  Sanford,  by  voting  with  the  machine  Sen- 
ators against  the  Initiative  amendment.  Miller's  work 
for  effective  railroad  regulation  and  for  an  effective 
Direct  Primary  law,  won  him  the  deserved  admiration 
and  confidence  of  the  better  element  of  the  Legislature. 
Senator  Cartwright  voted  but  twelve  times  on  the  six- 
teen roll  calls,  but  the  twelve  included  the  votes  on  the 
Direct  Primary  issues,  on  railroad  regulation,  and  on 
all  the  moral  issues  considered.  And  each  time,  Senator 
Cartwright's  vote  was  cast  on  the  side  of  good  govern- 
ment. 

On  the  other  side,  the  machine  side,  Senator  Bates 
distinguished  himself  but  once  during  the  session.  It 
was  Senator  Bates  who,  to  oblige  a  friend,  had  the 
notorious  Change  of  Venue  bill  placed  on  the  Special 
Urgency  File,  thus  making  the  passage  of  the  bill  pos- 
sible. Senator  Bates'  vote  and  influence — such  as  it 
was — were  thrown  in  the  balance  against  giving  the 
people  of  California  a  State-wide  vote — the  only  prac- 
tical vote — for  United  States  Senators.  He  voted  against 
the  effective  Stetson  bill;  he  voted  for  the  ineffective 
Railroad  Regulation  bill.  In  fact,  aside  from  the  Walker- 


284  The  "Retiring  Senators 

Otis  bill,  Bates  was  on  the  machine  side  of  practically 
every  issue.104 

Senator  Hartman  was  during  the  session  a  mere 
machine  vote.  He  was  always  on  hand,  always  voted, 
and  voted  with  the  machine.  It  was  Senator  Hart- 
man who  named  an  employee  of  the  notorious  Sausalito 
gambling  rooms  for  an  important  committee  clerkship. 
So  far  as  the  writer  can  recall,  Hartman  made  but  two 
speeches  during  the  session;  one  against  the  Walker- 
Otis  Anti-Gambling  bill,  one  against  the  Islais  Creek  Har- 
bor bill,  the  passage  of  which  meant  so  much  for  San 
Francisco,  the  city,  by  the  way,  responsible  for  Hart- 
man's  presence  at  Sacramento. 

On  the  sixteen  roll  calls  under  consideration,  Hart- 
man voted  sixteen  times  for  machine  policies.  As  a  vote, 
Hartman  is  a  valuable  machine  asset ;  otherwise  a 
nonentity. 

Those  who  have  read  the  previous  chapters  have  al- 
ready formed  their  opinion  of  the  advisability  of  return- 
ing to  the  Senate,  Kennedy,  the  hero  of  the  passage  of 
the  Change  of  Venue  bill ;  McCartney,  the  author  of  the 
famous  amendment  to  the  Direct  Primary  bill;  Weed, 
who  introduced  the  resolution  to  drag  Senator  Black 
from  his  sick  bed  at  Palo  Alto ;  Reily,  who  with  Senator 
Hartman,  alone  of  all  the  Senate  stood  out  against  the 
passage  of  the  Islais  Creek  Harbor  bills ;  Willis,  who  as 
Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  backed  such  meas- 
ures as  the  Change  of  Venue  bill,  and  opposed  such 
measures  as  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills ;  Savage,  who 


104  Since    the    Legislature    adjourned    Senator    Bates    has    been 
given  a  lucrative  position  in  the  United  States  Mint. 


The  Retiring  Senators  285 

in  committee  and  out  of  it,  opposed  the  State-wide  vote 
plan  for  nominating  United  States  Senators,  and  Senator 
Price. 

Price  did  not  distinguish  himself  particularly.  On 
the  sixteen  roll  calls  included  in  Table  A,  his  vote  was 
recorded  against  the  machine  as  many  as  four  times. 
But  there  were  ten  Senators  who  did  even  worse.  How- 
ever, a  story  of  the  closing  days  of  the  session  is  quite 
characteristic  of  Senator  Price. 

An  important  roll  call  was  on — if  the  writer  remem- 
bers correctly,  it  was  on  Burnett's  motion  to  continue 
the  investigation  into  the  causes  of  the  increase  of  freight 
and  express  rates.  Price  was  present,  but  did  not  an- 
swer to  the  call  of  his  name.  The  advocates  of  the  res- 
olution insisted  that  all  vote,  and  demanded  a  call  of  the 
Senate.  The  doors  were  ordered  closed,  at  which  order 
Price  made  a  run  for  the  door.  Caminetti  saw  the  move, 
understood  it  and  started  to  intercept  the  fleeing  Senator. 
But  if  Caminetti  were  quick,  Price  was  quicker. 
Caminetti  missed  his  grab  at  Price,  and  so  chased  that 
gentleman  to  the  door  of  the  Senate  chamber.  The  as- 
sistant Sergeant-at-Arms  at  the  door  was  just  swinging 
it  closed  as  Price  shot  through.  The  determined  Cam- 
inetti made  a  last  grab  at  Price's  coattails,  but  too  late. 
The  massive  doors  banged  closed,  with  Price,  coattails 
and  all,  on  the  outside,  and  the  balked  Caminetti  on  the 
inside.  Price  didn't  vote  on  that  roll  call. 

The  failure  to  return  Leavitt  to  the  Senate  will  be  a 
decided  loss  for  the  machine,  one  hard  to  offset.  Next 
to  Wolfe,  Leavitt  was  by  far  the  ablest  floor  leader  in  the 
Senate.  The  brute  force  of  the  man,  his  grossness,  his 


286  The  Retiring  Senators 

indifference  to  public  opinion,  made  him  an  ideal  machine 
leader.  Leavitt's  return  from  Alameda  seems  extremely 
doubtful.  His  district  takes  in  the  notorious  gambling 
community,  Emeryville,  which  will  be  purged  of  the  thug 
element  that  has  dominated  it,  by  the  enforcement  of  the 
Walker-Otis  law.  With  the  loss  of  this  portion  of  his 
constituency,  Senator  Leavitt's  chance  of  re-election  from 
Emeryville  appears  slim  indeed. 

But,  according  to  rather  persistent  rumor,  Senator 
Leavitt  may  be  returned  to  the  Senate,  not  from  Alameda, 
but  from  the  Siskiyou-Shasta  District,  the  district  rep- 
resented by  Weed.  Leavitt  has  property  up  there,  and 
the  story  runs  that  he  will  be  a  candidate  from  that  part 
of  the  State.  The  voters  of  Shasta  and  Siskiyou,  how- 
ever, may  conclude  that  they  have  something  to  say 
about  it. 

Senator  Wright,  the  last  of  the  Senators  whose  terms 
will  have  expired  before  the  next  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture convenes,  is  being  mentioned  as  a  "reform  candidate" 
for  Governor.  The  idea  seems  to  be  that  he  will  run  on 
his  record  made  at  the  session  of  1909.  If  this  be  true,  he 
may  not  be  a  candidate  for  re-election  to  the  Senate. 
Senator  Wright's  record  as  a  State  Senator  has  already 
been  treated  at  length. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
CONCLUSION. 

Events  of  the  Session  of  /pop  Show  That  Before  Any 
Effective  Reform  Can  Be  Brought  About  in  Califor- 
nia, Good  Government  Republicans  and  Democrats 
Must  Unite  to  Organise  Senate  and  Assembly — Ap- 
pointment of  Senate  Committees  May  Be  Taken  Out 
of  the  Hands  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor. 

In  the  opening  chapter  it  was  stated  that  the  machine 
element  in  the  Legislature  of  1909,  although  in  the 
minority,  defeated  the  purposes  of  the  reform  majority, 
because  of  three  principal  reasons : 

(1)  The  reform  element  was  without  organization. 

(2)  The  reform  members  had,  except  in  the  anti- 
racetrack  gambling  fight,  no  definite  plan  of  action. 

(3)  The  reform  members  of  both  Houses  permitted 
the  machine  to  name  presiding  officers  and  appoint  com- 
mittees. 

This  third  reason  must  appeal  to  those  who  have  read 
the  foregoing  pages  as  the  most  important  of  all.  The 
story  of  every  machine  success,  in  face  of  opposition,  is 
that  of  advantage  gained  through  the  moral  support  given 
by  the  presiding  officers,105  or  of  co-operation  of  com- 
mittees, or  of  both.  But,  unfortunately,  a  stupid  parti- 
sanship—a partisanship  which  the  machine  finds  far  more 

105  See,  for  example,  Speaker  Stanton's  ruling  on  the  Direct 
Primary  bill  when  the  Assembly  was  considering  the  question  of 
receding  from  its  amendments. 


288  Conclusion 

potent  than  bribe  money — makes  this  cause  of  machine 
success  more  difficult  to  overcome  than  either  of  the 
others.  Already  a  movement  is  on  foot,  the  details  of 
which  the  writer  is  not  at  liberty  to  make  public,  that  will 
unite  the  reform  element  of  the  next  Legislature  into  a 
working  body,  from  the  day  nominations  are  made. 
Steps  to  this  end  were  taken  before  the  last  Legislature 
adjourned.  In  the  same  way,  the  work  of  bringing  re- 
form issues  before  the  public — reform  of  the  ballot  laws, 
amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  law,  the  simplification 
of  the  mode  of  criminal  procedure — is  being  taken  up 
in  the  same  effective,  commonsense  way  as  was  the  Anti- 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill.  But  here  the  progress  of  the 
commonsense  element  of  machine  opposition  seems  to 
halt.  In  spite  of  their  experience  of  the  last  session, 
Democrats  and  Republicans  who  stand  for  good  govern- 
ment hesitate  at  the  suggestion  of  non-partisan  organiza- 
tion of  Senate  and  Assembly.  The  writer  has  shown  in 
the  foregoing  chapters  that  the  machine  Republicans  and 
the  machine  Democrats  were  for  practical  purposes  a  unit 
in  the  organization  of  the  Legislature  of  1909.  Why, 
then,  should  not  the  anti-machine  Republicans  and  the 
anti-machine  Democrats  unite  for  purposes  of  organiza- 
tion, just  as  they  united,  at  the  session  of  1909,  to  oppose 
vicious  measures  and  to  work  for  the  passage  of  good 
bills?  That  is  a  question  which  has  never  been  satis- 
factorily answered.  It  leads  us,  however,  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  real  line  of  division  in  Senate  and  Assembly, 
and,  for  that  matter,  in  State  politics. 106 

106  The  machine  recognizes  the  real  division,  if  the  reform  ele- 
ment does  not.  The  machine,  for  example,  calls  itself  Republican, 
and  as  such  controls  the  patronage  of  the  San  Francisco  water 
front.  The  appointments  to  water  front  jobs  are,  of  course,  par- 


Conclusion  289 

That  the  real  division  is  no  longer  between  political 
parties,  or  even  between  party  factions,  is  apparent  to  the 
observer  who  has  given  the  question  any  attention  at  all. 
Not  once,  for  example,  did  the  California  Legislature 
of  1909  divide  on  a  party  question;  nor  did  it  have  to 
deal  with  any  problem  that  had  not  at  one  time  or  an- 
other been  endorsed  by  both  parties.  Both  Democrats 
and  Republicans  in  either  State  or  county  platforms  had 
declared  for  the  passage  of  an  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
law,  for  an  effective  Direct  Primary  law,  for  an  effective 
Railroad  Regulation  law,  for  the  submission  to  the 
people  of  a  Constitutional  Amendment  granting  the  people 
the  privilege  of  initiating  laws.  In  the  same  way,  county 
conventions  of  both  parties — and  county  conventions  are 
the  closest  to  the  people  and  most  representative  of  them 
— had  declared  for  local  option,  for  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  for  amend- 
ments to  the  codes  that  should  simplify  proceedings  in 
criminal  cases,  for  effective  railroad  regulation.  Esti- 
mating the  purposes  of  the  two  parties  by  their  county 
and  State  platforms,  none  of  these  reforms  can  be  re- 
garded as  any  more  Democratic  than  Republican,  and 
these  were  the  issues  with  which  the  Legislature  of  1909 
was  called  upon  to  deal. 

A  glance  at  the  tables  of  votes  in  the  appendix  will 
show  that  the  Assemblymen  and  the  Senators  who  voted 

tisan,  but  the  writer  is  reliably  informed  that  as  many  "Demo- 
crats" as  "Republicans"  are  employed  there.  Senators  Hare  and 
Kennedy,  we  have  seen,  although  Democrats,  got  appointments  to 
holdover  committees.  The  machine  recognizes  but  one  line  in 
politics,  that  which  divides  those  who  support  machine  policies 
from  those  who  stand  for  good  government  and  the  square  deal. 
When  those  who  stand  for  good  government  and  the  square  deal 
become  as  clear  sighted,  the  fight  against  the  machine  will  not 
be  quite  so  unequal. 


290  Conclusion 

against  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  generally 
speaking,  voted  against  the  effective  Stetson  Railroad 
Regulation  bill  and  for  the  ineffective  Wright  bill,  op- 
posed the  provision  in  the  Direct  Primary  bill  giving  the 
people  an  effective  part  in  the  selection  of  United  States 
Senators,  supported  the  passage  of  the  Change  of  Venue 
bill,  opposed  the  passage  of  the  Local  Option  bill,  opposed 
the  submission  of  the  Initiative  amendment  to  the  elec- 
tors of  the  State.  This  negative  element,  opposed  to 
policies  which  the  normal  citizen  regards  as  making  for 
the  State's  best  interests,  has  in  these  pages  been  called 
the  machine. 107 

As  has  been  shown  in  these  pages,  the  interests  of  the 
several  beneficiaries  of  the  system  are  in  effect  pooled; 
one  element  helps  the  other.  The  managers  of  the  sev- 
eral elements,  the  political  agents,  if  you  like,  of  the 
tenderloin,  Southern  Pacific,  racetrack,  and  public-service 
monopolies  generally;  in  a  word,  all  who  seek  to  evade 
the  law  or  to  secure  undue  special  privileges  or  to  con- 
tinue secure  in  the  possession  of  such  privileges  already 
secured,  recognize  that  they  must  hang  together  or  sub- 
mit to  a  reckoning  with  the  public,  which  must  necessarily 
result  in  the  breaking  of  the  particular  monopoly  which 
each  enjoys,  be  it  in  transportation,  nickel-in-the-slot 
graft,  or  traffic  in  the  bodies  of  young  women.  Should 
the  political  bureau  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Com- 

107  The  term  "machine"  is,  as  a  general  thing,  rather  lightly 
used.  It  is  made  to  stand  for  everything,  from  what  might  be  and 
should  be  perfectly  legitimate  party  organization,  to  the  Southern 
Pacific  political  bureau.  The  Southern  Pacific  political  bureau  is, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  dominating  factor  in  machine  affairs,  which 
gives  some  reason  for  dubbing  the  machine  Southern  Pacific.  But 
it  is  no  more  the  Southern  Pacific  machine  than  it  is  the  Tender- 
loin machine  or  the  Racetrack  gamblers'  machine,  or  the  United 
Railroads  machine,  or  the  Electric  Power  Trust  machine. 


Conclusion  291 

pany,  for  example,  lose  the  support  of  the  tenderloin,  or 
of  the  racetrack  gamblers,  or  of  any  other  powerful 
group  of  its  political  associates,  the  corporation  could  no 
longer  continue  its  strangle-hold  upon  the  State.  But 
none  of  its  associates  would  dare  thus  offend.  Such  is 
the  machine,  which,  in  the  name  of  a  protective  tariff, 
"sound  money,"  Abraham  Lincoln,  or  Theodore  Roose- 
velt, has  organized  the  Legislature  of  California  for  six- 
teen years.  Previous  to  1895,  there  were  California  Leg- 
islatures organized  in  the  name  of  Thomas  Jefferson. 
But  the  machine  has  not  taken  the  name  of  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson in  vain  in  California  for  many  years. 108 

Nevertheless,  although  acting  under  the  name  Re- 
publican, the  machine  is  quite  as  dependent  upon  "Demo- 
crats" as  upon  "Republicans,"  and  as  dependent  upon 
either  as  upon  the  tenderlpin,  the  brewery  trust  or  the 
racetrack  gambling  element.  It  monopolizes  neither 
party,  but  it  divides  both  parties.  Or  it  may  be  described 
as  a  canker  that  has  eaten  into  both,  diseased  both,  ren- 
dered both  unwholesome,  until  a  condition  exists  in  the 
dominating  parties  that  requires  that  the  uncorrupted  ele- 
ment of  both  unite  to  cut  the  diseased  portion  away. 109 

108  Bryce  in  his  American  Commonwealth,  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century  ago,   showed  the  hollowness  of  the  contention  of  the 
machine  element  for  party  consideration.     "The  interest  of  a  Boss 
in  political  questions,"  said  Bryce  in  one  of  his  admirable  chapters 
on  this  subject,    "is  usually  quite  secondary.     Here  and  there  one 
may   be    found   who   is   a  politician    in    the   European    sense,    who, 
whether  sincerely  or  not,   purports   and  professes   to  be  interested 
in  some  principle  or  measure  affecting  the  welfare  of  the  country. 
But  the  attachment  of  the  ringster  is  usually  given  wholly  to  the 
concrete  party,   that  is,   to  the  men  who  compose  it,   regarded  as 
office-holders    or    office-seekers;    and    there    is    often    not    even    a 
profession    of  zeal   for  any   party   doctrine.     As   a  noted   politician 
happily  observed  to  a  friend  of  mine:     'You  know,   Mr.   R.f   there 
are  no  politics  in  politics.'  " 

109  One  has  a  wider  view  of  this  condition  if  he  look  out  be- 
yond the  Sacramento  Capitol,  into  the  Senate  Hall  at  Washington. 


292  Conclusion 

As  the  machine  divides  the  parties,  so  did  it  divide 
the  Republican  and  Democratic  delegations  in  the  Senate 
and  the  Assembly  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909. 
Hare  and  Kennedy,  for  example,  Democratic  Senators, 
voted  constantly  with  Wolfe  and  Leavitt,  Republican  Sen- 
ators, for  machine  policies.  Nor  was  the  opposition  re- 
stricted to  party  lines.  Black  and  Boynton  and  Cutten, 
Republican  Senators,  were  found  voting  constantly  with 
Campbell  and  Holohan,  Democratic  Senators,  against  the 
machine.  Between  Black  and  Wolfe,  Republicans,  there 
was  nothing  in  common  during  the  entire  session;  nor 
was  there  anything  in  common  between  Campbell  and 
Kennedy,  Democrats.  On  practically  every  important 
issue,  however,  Kennedy,  Democrat,  and  Wolfe,  Repub- 

The  following  is  from  an  editorial  article  which  appeared  in  the 
Saturday  Evening  Post,  of  June  12  last: 

"The  iron  trade  is  still  in  a  depressed  state.  Output  is  much 
below  the  capacity  of  the  mills,  and  prices  have  not  recovered  from 
the  demoralization  of  early  spring.  Yet  the  other  day  the  common 
stock  of  the  Steel  Trust  sold  higher  than  ever  before.  When  is- 
sued, this  common  stock  was  rather  thinner  than  water,  and  it 
represented  mostly  a  capitalization  of  the  Trust's  tariff  graft.  At 
the  new  high  price  the  market  valuation  of  the  graft,  therefore,  is 
some  three  hundred  million  dollars.  A  few  days  before  this  new 
high  price  was  made,  eighteen  Democratic  Senators  voted  with  the 
Aldrich  Republicans  to  take  iron  ore  from  the  free  list — where  the 
House  bill  had  put  it— and  protect  it  by  a  substantial  duty.  This 
action  was  generally  regarded  as  insuring  a  continuation  of  the 
Trust's  tariff  graft.  Hence  a  record  price  for  the  common  stock 
was  logical  enough,  although  the  iron  trade  was  not  exactly  flour- 
ishing at  the  moment. 

"Similar  acts  by  Democratic  Senators  were  denounced  by  Pres- 
ident Cleveland  as  party  perfidy  and  dishonor;  but  the  regrettable 
fact  is  there  is  only  one  party  in  the  United  States  Senate — just 
one  party,  with  some  scattering  Republicans  and  Democratic  in- 
surgents. For  the  purpose  of  getting  elected  and  making  stump 
speeches,  different  labels  and  catchwords  are  employed;  but  when 
it  comes  down  to  real  business  in  the  matter  of  taxing  eighty-odd 
million  users  of  iron  and  steel  products  for  the  benefit  of  an  opu- 
lent trust,  we  find  forty-three  Republican  Senators  and  eighteen 
Democratic  Senators  stanchly  voting  aye,  against  fourteen  Repub- 
licans and  ten  Democrats  who  vote  nay. 

"With  over  half  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Upper  House 
fondly  recording  themselves  as  Little  Brothers  to  Protection,  there 
is  slight  danger  that  the  tariff  will  be  revised  otherwise  than  by 
its  friends." 


Conclusion  293 

lican,  made  common  cause,  while  Black,  Republican,  and 
Campbell,  Democrat,  opposed  them. 

The  same  comparisons  could  be  made  in  the  Assembly, 
where  such  Democrats  as  Wheelan  and  Baxter  were  found 
with  Mott  and  Coghlan,  Republicans,  supporting  machine 
policies,  while  opposed  to  them  were  anti-machine  Re- 
publicans of  the  character  of  Bohnett  and  Callan,  and 
anti-machine  Democrats  like  Polsley  and  Mendenhall. 

Thus,  for  practical  purposes,  the  Legislature  can  not 
be  divided  on  party  lines.  The  only  practical  line  of  divi- 
sion is  between  the  machine  element,  and  the  anti- 
machine  element.  Such,  at  the  session  of  1909,  was  the 
division  on  every  important  issue;  such  will  it  be  at  the 
legislative  session  of  1911.  Why  should  not  the  same 
division  govern  the  organization  of  Senate  and  Assembly  ? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  machine  disregards  party  lines 
even  in  organizing.  In  making  up  its  committees  it  con- 
siders fealty  to  machine  interests  above  party  name.  For 
example,  Hare  and  Kennedy  were  the  Democratic  Sena- 
tors who  this  year  affiliated  with  the  machine.  Kennedy 
was  appointed  to  practically  every  important  committee, 
at  least  to  those  before  which  important  fights  were  to  be 
made.  Thus  we  find  him  on  the  Committee  on  Commerce 
and  Navigation,  Contingent  Expenses,  Elections  and  Elec- 
tion Laws,  Prisons  and  Reformatories,  and  Public  Morals, 
Hare  was  appointed  to  the  Committee  on  Commerce  and 
Navigation,  Elections  and  Election  Laws,  Labor,  Capital 
and  Immigration,  Municipal  Corporations,  Printing,  and 
Public  Buildings  and  Grounds.  In  committees,  as  well 
as  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  Hare  and  Kennedy  were 


294  Conclusion 

found  as  a  general  thing  casting  their  influence  and  their 
votes  on  the  side  of  machine  policies. 

Had  the  anti-machine  Democrats  and  the  anti-machine 
Republicans  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  who  worked  to- 
gether for  the  same  ends  and  voted  together  on  prac- 
tically every  important  issue,  taken  the  same  course,  and 
united  for  the  organization  of  the  two  Houses,  reform 
measures  which  were  defeated  by  narrow  margins  would 
have  been  made  laws,  and  machine  measures  which  be- 
came laws  defeated. 

Such  being  the  case,  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  anti- 
machine  Republicans  and  the  anti-machine  Democrats 
who  may  sit  in  the  Legislature  of  1911,  to  organize  both 
Senate  and  Assembly  to  resist  machine  purposes  and 
policies  ? 

This  can  be  done  comparatively  easily  in  the  Assembly, 
where  a  movement  to  elect  the  Speaker  such  as  was 
started  by  Drew  of  Fresno  this  year,  if  carried  out,  would 
take  the  Assembly  out  of  machine  hands.  Although  the 
organization  of  the  Senate  looks  more  difficult,  because 
the  Senate  has  no  voice  in  the  selection  of  its  presiding 
officer,  nevertheless,  even  though  a  Warren  Porter  oc- 
cupy the  post  of  Lieutenant-Governor,  at  the  session  of 
1911  the  reform  element  can  elect  its  President  pro  tern., 
and  appoint  the  Senate  committees.  In  other  words,  a 
majority  of  the  Senate,  may  if  it  see  fit,  take  the  ap- 
pointing of  the  committees  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
Lieutenant-Governor. 

There  are  two  important  precedents  for  this  course, 
one  established  by  a  Democratic  Senate;  the  other  by  a 
Republican  Senate. 


Conclusion  295 

The  Democratic  precedent  was  established  in  1887. 
In  that  year  Robert  W.  Waterman,  a  Republican,  was 
Lieutenant-Governor  and  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate. 
The  Senate  was  made  up  of  twenty-six  Democrats  and 
fourteen  Republicans.  The  Democratic  majority  organ- 
ized the  Senate  under  the  following  rule,  which  will  be 
found  in  the  Senate  Journal  of  that  session: 

"All  Committees  of  the  Senate,  special  and  standing, 
and  all  joint  Committees  on  the  part  thereof,  shall  be 
elected  by  the  Senate  unless  otherwise  ordered." 

The  Republican  precedent  was  made  in  1897.  In  that 
year,  William  T.  Jeter,  a  Democrat,  was  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  while  a  majority  of  the  Senators  were  Repub- 
licans. Instead  of  leaving  the  appointing  of  the  commit- 
tees to  the  Democratic  Lieutenant-Governor,  the  Repub- 
lican Senators  adopted  a  rule  that  "all  standing  commit- 
tees of  the  Senate  shall  be  named  by  the  Senate,  unless 
otherwise  ordered,  and  the  first  named  shall  be  chairman 
thereof.  All  other  committees  shall  be  appointed  in  such 
manner  as  the  Senate  shall  determine." 

In  other  words,  the  Republican  majority  of  the  Senate 
named  the  Senate  committees  of  the  session  of  1897, 
taking  their  appointment  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor as  the  Democrats  had  done  ten  years  be- 
fore. There  is  no  good  reason  why  the  members  of  the 
anti-machine  majority  in  the  Senate  should  not  have 
taken  the  some  course  in  1909,  and  named  the  commit- 
tees. Had  they  done  so,  and  named  the  President  pro 
tern.,  they  would  have  organized  the  Senate  in  the  inter- 
est of  those  policies  in  advancing  which  they  were  soon 
in  open  revolt  against  Lieutenant-Governor  Porter,  the 


296  Conclusion 

machine  Senators  and  the  machine  lobby.  Failing  to  do 
so,  they  placed  themselves  under  a  handicap  which  they 
were  unable  to  overcome. 

The  reform  element  of  the  Legislature  of  1911  will 
have  in  the  experience  of  the  reform  element  of  the  ses- 
sion of  1909,  an  important  lesson.  And  The  People  of 
California,  who  will  elect  that  Legislature,  have  a  lesson 
as  important.  The  successes  of  the  machine  at  the  ses- 
sion of  1909,  where  a  clear  majority  of  both  Houses  op- 
posed machine  policies,  demonstrated  that  the  well-being 
of  the  State  requires  that  the  opponents  of  the  machine 
in  Senate  and  Assembly,  regardless  of  party  label,  organ- 
ize the  Legislature.  But  back  of  this  is  the  even  more 
important  requirement  that  there  be  elected  to  the  Leg- 
islature American  citizens,  with  the  responsibility  of  their 
citizenship  upon  them,  rather  than  partisans,  burdened 
until  their  good  purposes  are  made  negative,  by  the  re- 
sponsibility of  their  partisanship. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 


TABLES   OF  VOTES. 

The  test  votes  given  in  the  several  tables  record  in  every 
instance  the  result  of  a  contest  between  the  machine  and  the 
anti-machine  forces  in  Senate  or  Assembly.  It  is  quite  evi- 
dent that  a  unanimous  vote  cannot  be  counted  a  test  vote. 
Thus  the  unanimous  vote  by  which  the  Reciprocal  Demur- 
rage bill  passed  the  Senate  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  test, 
although  the  machine  fought  the  demurrage  principle 
viciously  in  1907. 

Nor  can  a  vote  on  a  measure  be  taken  as  a  test  vote, 
where  the  vote  was  taken  without  the  members  fully  realiz- 
ing what  was  before  them.  Thus  the  votes  on  the  Wheelan 
bills  do  not  appear  in  either  Senate  or  Assembly  tables. 
These  measures  were  slipped  through  Senate  and  Assembly 
without  the  members  of  either  House  fully  realizing  what  the 
bills  were,  their  purpose,  or  far-reaching  effects.  To  be  sure, 
a  member  of  the  Legislature  should  know  what  he  is  voting 
on,  but  when  one  considers  the  incidents  of  the  whirl-wind 
close  of  the  session  of  1909,  the  injustice  of  holding  a  mem- 
ber accountable  for  inadvertently  voting  for  a  measure 
which  he  had  intended  to  oppose,  becomes  apparent. 

Following  this  rule,  a  vote  on  a  given  measure  may  be 
a  test  vote  in  one  House  and  not  in  the  other.  The  Change 
of  Venue  bill  is  an  example  in  point.  The  Change  of  Venue 
bill  was  slipped  through  the  Assembly,  without  the  mem- 
bers fully  realizing  its  import,  and  hence  without  opposition. 
But  in  the  Senate  the  issue  was  fought  out.  The  Senate 
vote  on  the  Change  of  Venue  bill,  then,  is  taken  as  a  test 
vote,  while  the  Assembly  vote  on  the  same  measure  is  not 
so  regarded.  In  the  same  way,  the  vote  on  the  substitution 
of  the  Wright  bill  for  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill 
was  a  test  vote  in  the  Senate.  But  in  the  Assembly  there 
was  no  test  vote  taken  on  the  railroad  regulation  measures, 


11 


for  the  Wright  bill  was  put  through  practically  without  op- 
position. The  test  railroad  vote  in  the  Assembly  came  on 
the  Sanford  resolution  providing  for  government  steamships 
on  the  Pacific.  There  was  no  test  vote  on  this  in  the  Senate, 
for  in  the  Senate  it  was  adopted  practically  without  oppo- 
sition. 

TABLE  A— RECORDS  OF  SENATORS. 

The  records  of  the  members  of  the  Senate  on  sixteen  test 
votes  are  shown  in  Table  A.  The  names  of  the  Senators  are 
arranged  in  the  order  of  the  number  of  times  their  votes 
were  recorded  on  the  side  of  progress  and  reform,  the  name 
of  the  Senator  with  the  most  positive  votes  to  his  credit  ap- 
pearing at  the  top  of  the  list,  and  the  Senator  with  the  least 
number  at  the  bottom. 

While  few  will  quarrel  with  the  fact  that  Senator  Bell's 
name  leads  the  list,  while  Senators  Finn  and  Hartman 
divide  negative  honors  at  the  bottom,  nevertheless  the  ar- 
rangement is  not,  strictly  speaking,  fair,  although  it  is  prob- 
ably as  fair  as  it  could  be  made. 

Senator  Walker,  for  example,  has  only  one  anti-reform 
vote  registered  against,  him,  but  it  was,  perhaps,  the  most 
important  test  vote  of  the  session,  that  on  the  Railroad 
Regulation  measures.  Senator  Cutten,  on  the  other  hand, 
voted  on  the  reform  side  of  every  question  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  measure  intended  to  work  political  reform  by 
removing  the  party  circle  from  the  election  ballot.  Senator 
Cutten  is  recorded  twice  against  this  bill,  it  being  necessary, 
in  justice  to  all  the  Senators,  to  give  both  the  votes  taken 
on  this  measure.  But  considering  the  relative  importance 
of  the  Railroad  Regulation  bills  and  the  Party  Circle  bill, 
all  must  admit  that  Senator  Cutten  made  a  better  record 
than  Senator  Walker,  although  Cutten's  name  appears  be- 
low that  of  Walker. 

Unavoidable  absence  from  the  Senate  Chamber  cut  down 
the  records  of  several  of  the  Senators.  Black  and  Stetson, 
whose  severe  illness  kept  them  from  Sacramento  toward  the 
end  of  the  session,  furnish  examples  of  this. 


Ill 


Then  again,  the  Party  Circle  bill  and  the  Local  Option 
bill  were  measures  on  which  several  of  the  strongest  of  the 
opponents  of  the  machine  differed  with  the  majority  of  their 
anti-machine  associates.  With  the  four  votes  taken  on  these 
two  issues  out  of  the  reckoning,  Bell,  Thompson,  Roseberry, 
Cutten,  Campbell,  Boynton,  Sanford,  Cartwright,  Black, 
Holohan,  Birdsall,  Stetson,  Rush  and  Strobridge,  have  not 
one  vote  for  a  machine-backed  policy  against  them.  Cami- 
netti's  vote  to  amend  the  Stanford  bill  excludes  him  from 
the  list,  but  as  this  measure  was  of  the  same  character  and 
policy  as  the  Local  Option  bill,  Caminetti's  name  should  in 
justice  be  included  among  those  of  the  Senators  who  made 
practically  clear  records.  Looking  at  the  table  in  a  broad 
way,  the  first  nineteen  Senators  of  the  list  made  anti- 
machine  records.  Of  the  eleven  caucus  Republicans  among 
them,  only  one  voted  against  admitting  Bell  to  the  Repub- 
lican caucus. 

The  nineteen  voted  for  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill, 
they  voted  every  time  against  the  machine  on  the  Direct 
Primary  issue,  only  two  of  them  voted  for  the  Change  of 
Venue  bill,  only  two  of  them  voted  against  the  Railroad 
Regulation  bill.  These  comparisons  can  be  carried  out  in- 
definitely, and  always  to  the  advantage  of  the  nineteen. 

Senator  Wright  is  twentieth  on  the  list;  Senator  Anthony 
is  twenty-first.  Those  who  followed  these  two  Senators 
through  the  Direct  Primary  bill  fight  will  see  immediately 
that  Wright  has  crowded  into  undeserved  standing.  There  is 
a  very  good  reason  for  this.  In  the  Senate,  the  roll  of  Sena- 
tors is  called  alphabetically,  and  Senator  Wright's  name  is 
the  last  on  the  list.  A  glance  at  the  table  will  show  that 
Senator  Wright  did  not  vote  once  against  the  machine 
when  his  vote  would  have  decided  the  issue.  He  voted  for 
the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  but  before  him  thirty-two 
Senators  had  voted  for  the  bill,  and  only  seven  against  it. 
Wright's  thirty-third  affirmative  vote  counted  for  nothing. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  Wright's  name  was  reached  on 
roll  call  on  the  Change  of  Venue  bill,  with  the  vote  standing 


IV 


nineteen  for  the  bill  and  sixteen  against,  and  twenty-one  votes 
necessary  for  its  passage,  Senator  Wright  cast  the  twen- 
tieth affirmative  vote,  thus  ensuring  the  measure's  passage. 
In  the  same  way,  Senator  Wright's  vote  the  following  day, 
tied  the  score  on  the  motion  for  a  call  of  the  Senate,  thus 
defeating  the  motion,  and  preventing  reconsideration  of  the 
Change  of  Venue  bill  which  would  have  meant  its  defeat. 

The  query  is:  Had  the  vote  on  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling bill  stood  nineteen  against  the  bill,  and  twenty  for, 
when  Wright's  name  was  reached,  with  twenty-one  votes 
necessary  for  its  passage,  would  Wright's  vote  have  been  cast 
for  or  against  it?  Any  person  who  has  any  doubt  on  the 
question,  is  referred  to  Senator  Wright's  part  in  the  passage 
of  the  amended  Direct  Primary  bill,  and  in  the  defeat  of  the 
Stetson  bill. 

It  is  most  advantageous  to  have  one's  name  at  the  bottom 
of  a  roll  call.  Senator  Weight's  position  above  that  of  Sen- 
ators Anthony  and  Burnett,  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  con- 
sidering these  tables  in  connection  with  the  chapters  dealing 
with  the  several  issues  involved.  From  the  first  days  of  the 
session  Senators  Anthony  and  Burnett  gave  indications  that 
had  the  anti-machine  forces  been  organized,  they  would  have 
been  found  consistently  against  the  machine.  At  any  rate, 
their  records  are  admittedly  more  creditable  than  that  made 
by  Senator  Wright. 

THE  SIXTEEN   TEST   VOTES. 

Senator  Bell  did  not  vote  in  the  Senate  Republican  cau- 
cus, nor  did  the  nine  Democratic  Senators.  Thus  in  the 
sixteen  votes  recorded,  Bell  and  the  Democratic  members 
voted  only  fifteen  times.  An  outline  of  each  of  the  several 
issues  involved  follows: 

Senate  A — The  first  test  vote  of  the  Republican  majority 
which  came  in  the  Republican  caucus  described  in  Chapter 
II,  on  motion  to  admit  Senator  Bell  to  caucus  privileges. 
Lost  by  a  vote  of  16  to  14. 

Senate  B — Vote  on  proposed  McCartney  Amendments  to 


Direct  Primary  bill.  Amendments  defeated  by  vote  of  27 
to  13.  See  Chapter  IX. 

Senate  C — Senate  vote  on  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill. 
See  Chapter  VII. 

Senate  0 — Vote  on  Wolfe's  motion  to  send  the  Local 
Option  bill  back  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  See  Chapter 
XVIII. 

Senate  E— First  vote  on  Senate  Bill  220,  abolishing  the 
party  circle  on  the  election  ballot.  Measure  was  defeated 
by  vote  of  15  to  23. 

Senate  F — Vote  by  which  the  above  Senate  Bill  220  was 
passed  on  reconsideration.  Note  the  Senators  who  changed 
to  the  side  favoring  the  measure. 

Senate  G — Test  vote  on  Senate  Bill  1144,  known  as  the 
"Stanford  Bill,"  which  prohibited  the  sale  of  intoxicants 
within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  a  University.  The  measure  was 
aimed  at  the  low  groggeries  maintained  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  campus  at  Stanford.  It  was  fought  by  the  same  tender- 
loin element  that  had  opposed  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
bill.  Senator  Wolfe  moved  to  amend  the  measure  to  ex- 
clude fraternal  club  houses  and  hotels  of  fifty  bed-rooms  or 
more,  from  its  provisions.  The  amendment  would  have  de- 
layed and  perhaps  defeated  the  bill.  Wolfe's  motion  was 
defeated. 

Senate  H — Vote  by  which  the  above  Senate  Bill  1144  was 
finally  passed. 

Senate  I — First  test  railroad  vote  in  the  Senate — Senator 
Stetson  moved  that  Stetson  bill  be  substituted  for  the  Wright 
bill.  The  motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  16  to  22.  Had 
Rush  and  Roseberry  been  present  they  would  have  voted 
on  the  side  of  the  Stetson  measure.  This  would  have  made 
the  vote  twenty-two  for  the  Wright  bill,  and  eighteen  for 
the  Stetson  bill.  See  Chapter  XIII. 

Senate  J — Vote  on  the  Initiative  Amendment.  See  Chap- 
ter XIX. 

Senate  K — Vote  on  the  Local  Option  bill.  See  Chapter 
XVIII. 


VI 


Senate  L — Vote  on  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No. 
4,  to  eliminate  ambiguities  from  those  sections  of  the  State 
Constitution  which  prescribe  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
Railroad  Commission.  See  Chapter  XIV. 

Senate  M — Vote  on  Assembly  amendments  to  the  Direct 
Primary  bill.  Wright  moved  that  the  Senate  concur  in  the 
amendments.  The  motion  was  lost,  but  on  Wolfe's  motion 
to  reconsider  the  vote,  the  Senate  was  held  in  deadlock  for 
more  than  a  week.  See  Chapters  X  and  XI. 

Senate  N — Vote  on  Change  of  Venue  bill.  See  Chapter 
XVI. 

Senate  O — Vote  on  motion  to  reconsider  vote  by  which 
Change  of  Venue  bill  was  passed.  See  Chapter  XVI. 

Senate  P — Vote  on  Burnett's  motion  that  the  investiga- 
tion into  the  causes  for  the  increase  of  freight  and  express 
rates  be  continued  after  the  Legislature  adjourned.  See 
Chapter  XIV. 

TABLES   B  AND   C— RECORD   OF  ASSEMBLYMEN. 

The  two  tables  showing  the  votes  of  the  members  of  the 
Assembly  include  eleven  test  votes.  The  names  of  the 
Assemblymen  are  arranged  as  in  the  case  of  the  Senators 
with  the  names  of  those  who  made  the  best  records  at  the 
top. 

It  will  be  seen  that  fourteen  Assemblymen  voted  against 
the  machine  on  every  roll  call,  eight  were  absent  on  one 
roll  call  each,  but  voted  the  ten  times  they  were  present 
against  the  machine,  while  three  members  voted  once  each 
with  the  machine,  and  ten  times  against  it.  These  twenty- 
five  members,  voting  267  times,  cast  264  votes  on  the  side 
of  progress  and  reform,  and  three  votes  for  machine  policies. 
The  record  indicates  what  might  have  been  done  in  the 
Assembly  had  the  reform  forces  been  organized.  Indeed,  the 
forty  leading  Assemblymen,  casting  421  votes,  cast  only  48 
votes  for  machine  policies  and  373  against. 

The  same  considerations  governed  the  selection  of  test 
votes  in  the  Assembly  as  in  the  Senate.  The  votes  are  as 
follows: 


Vll 


Assembly  A — The  first  test  vote  in  the  Assembly  was  on 
Drew's  resolution  to  reject  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules.  The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  the  machine's  plan 
to  force  "gag  rules"  on  the  Assembly  failed.  See  Chap- 
ter III — Organization  of  the  Assembly. 

Assembly  B — The  test  vote  on  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling bill.  The  Committee  on  Public  Morals  had  recom- 
mended that  the  bill  "do  pass."  Mott  moved  that  the  bill 
be  re-referred  to  the  committee.  Motion  lost  by  a  vote  of 
S3  to  23.  See  Chapter  VII. 

Assembly  C — Vote  on  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill. 
See  Chapter  VII. 

Assembly  D — Vote  on  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was  passed.  See 
Chapter  VII. 

Assembly  E — The  test  railroad  vote  in  the  Assembly  came 
on  Drew's  motion  to  recall  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  3 
from  committee.  The  resolution  called  for  a  line  of  govern- 
ment-owned steamships  on  the  Pacific  from  San  Francisco 
to  Panama.  The  resolution,  having  been  adopted  by  the 
Senate,  went  to  the  Assembly  and  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Federal  Relations.  To  hasten  action  on  the  reso- 
lution, Drew  moved  that  it  be  recalled  from  the  committee. 
A  two-thirds  vote  was  necessary  for  Drew's  motion  to  pre- 
vail. The  motion  failed  to  carry  by  a  vote  of  36  for  to  29 
against. 

Assembly  F — Vote  on  motion  to  strike  out  of  Senate 
Joint  Resolution  No.  3 — considered  under  E — those  sections 
which  referred  to  Commissioner  Bristow's  report  recom- 
mending that  the  Government  steamship  line  be  established, 
and  criticizing  the  combinations  made  between  the  several 
transportation  companies.  The  motion  prevailed  by  a  vote 
of  43  to  30. 

Assembly  G — Assembly  test  vote  on  the  Direct  Primary 
bill.  Vote  taken  on  Leed's  motion  that  vote  on  United 
States  Senators  be  advisory  and  by  districts.  The  motion 
prevailed  by  a  vote  of  38  to  36.  See  Chapter  X. 


Vlll 


Assembly  H — Vote  on  proposed  amendments  to  the  Islais 
Creek  Harbor  bill.  Motion  was  made  to  amend  by  substi- 
tuting 44  blocks  for  the  63  necessary  for  the  improvement. 
Had  this  been  done,  the  work  would  have  been  made  im- 
practicable. Motion  lost  by  a  vote  of  30  to  45.  See  Chap- 
ter XXIII,  "Influence  of  the  San  Francisco  Delegation." 

Assembly  I — Leeds  moved  that  Senate  Bill  220  removing 
the  party  circle  from  the  election  ballot  be  denied  second 
reading.  The  motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  thirty-six  for, 
to  thirty-five  against. 

Assembly  J— Vote  on  Senate  Bill  1144  (the  Stanford 
bill),  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicants  within  a  mile  and 
a  half  of  Stanford  University. 

Assembly  K — Vote  on  the  Judicial  Column  bill.  This 
measure  provided  that  the  names  of  candidates  for  the 
judiciary  be  placed  in  a  separate  non-partisan  column  on  the 
election  ballot.  The  bill  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  de- 
feated in  the  Assembly. 

THE    OTHER    TABLES. 

Table  D  shows  the  six  votes  on  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling bill.  See  Chapter  VII. 

Tables  E  and  F — Show  the  records  of  the  San  Francisco 
delegation  in  the  Senate  and  Assembly.  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

Table  G — Shows  the  records  on  sixteen  test  votes  of  the 
twenty  Senators  whose  terms  of  office  will  have  expired  be- 
fore the  next  session  convenes.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

Table  H — Shows  the  records  on  sixteen  test  votes  of  the 
twenty  Senators  who  were  elected  in  1908,  and  who  hold 
over  to  serve  in  the  session  of  1911.  See  Chapter  XXVI. 

Table  I — Shows  records  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly 
on  the  four  principal  votes  arising  out  of  the  fight  for  the 
passage  of  the  so-called  Anti-Japanese  bills.  See  Chap- 
ter XX. 


Table  A — Records  of  Senators 


A       ||        B       ||        C       ||       D        ||        E       (I        F       ||       G       ||        H 

3 

| 

si 

6 

-M 

1 

1 

1 

S 

i 

a 

. 

* 

1 

• 

pq 

§ 

09 

o° 

I? 

1  3 

go 

5 

"s  ™ 

a'fc 

3 
O 

*s 

d6 

>  W 

0 

>  3 

11 

g5 

!l 

"i  £ 

H 

1 
1 

g 

sfc 

Second 
Circle 

t> 

sm 

n 

CO 

Senator        |  Aye|No  ||  Aye|No  |  |Aye|No  ||  Aye|No  1 1  Aye|No|  |Aye|No|  |  Aye|No|  |  Aye|No 


1  Bell    

* 

*  1 

2  Thompson    . 
3  Roseberry    . 
4  Walker   .... 
5  Cutten  

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

o  j 

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

6  Campbell    .. 
7  Boynton    .  .  . 
8  Sanford    ... 
9  Cartwright 
10  Caminetti    . 

* 

0 
0 

0 

0 

* 
* 

11  Estudillo  .. 
12  Black 

, 

0 

* 
* 

o 

* 

13  Holohan  ... 
14  Miller  
15  Birdsall  ... 

* 

0 
0 

0 

* 

16  Stetson  .... 
17  Rush 

* 
* 

o 

* 
* 

18  Curtin  
19  Strobridge  . 
20  Wright  .... 

* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

0 

* 
* 

21  Anthony  .  .  . 
22  Burnett    ... 
23  McCartney 
24  Kennedy    .  . 
25  Lewis    

* 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

26  Willis    . 
27  Welch     .... 
28  Bates     
29  Price    . 

* 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 

o 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

o 

* 

0 
0 

o 

0 

30  Savage  .... 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

31  Bills 

o 

o 

* 

o 

o 

1 

1     * 

32  Leavitt  .... 
33  Hare 

0 

0 

o 

0 

o 

o 

* 

* 

* 
* 

o 

0 

o 

34  Kurd  .  . 

o 

* 

o 

o 

* 

35  Martinelli  . 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

36  Wolfe  
37  Reily 

* 

0 

0 

o 

0 

o 

0 

o 

* 

o 

* 

o 

0 

* 

38  Weed  .  . 

o 

o 

o 

* 

o 

o 

39  Finn  

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

40  Hartman  .  . 

0 

0 

o 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Totals    ...|  14  |16  ||  13  |27  ||  33  |  7  ||  20 


16  |22  ||  23  |15  ||     8  |22  ||  29   |  5 


Character  "*"  indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 

Names  of  Senators  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  records,  with  the  name  of 
the  Senator  making  the  best  record  at  the  top. 


on  Sixteen  Test  Votes 


N 


I 

-i 

il 

<D 

;-.  o> 
®3 

TOTALS 

I 

1 

§ 

Is 

1 

~£ 

s| 

| 

d 

25 

• 

1 

"o, 

S* 

"o 

0° 

°® 

"£  -u 

| 

i 

H 

Initiatlv 
ment. 

0 

I 

Railroad 
ment. 

Assembl 
ment 
Primal 

Js 

1L 

<D    j- 

If 

& 
1 

Against 

Absent. 

Aye|No||Aye|Nol|Aye|No||Aye|No[|Aye|No  ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 


* 
* 

i 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

15 
15 
14 
14 
14 

0 

1 
1 
1 

2 

0 
0 
1 
1 
0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

! 
0 
0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

13 
13 
13 
12 
12 

0 
1 
2 
0 
3 

2 
2 
0 
3 
0 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

1  • 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

12 
11 
11 
11 
11 

4 

1 
2 
2 
3 

0 
4 
2 
2 
2 

* 
* 

0 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

• 

o 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

0 

10 
10 
10 
10 
9 

0 
2 
3 

4 
7 

6 
4 
2 
2 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 

ooooo 

1 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 

! 

0 
0 

» 

* 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

o 

7 
5 
5 
5 
5 

8 
7 
8 
9 
10 

1 

4 
3 
1 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

o  ! 

0 
0 

1 

1 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

ooooo 

ooooo 

0 
0 
0 

5 
4 
4 

4 
4 

11 
9 
10 
11 
11 

0 
3 

2 

1 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

• 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

0 
0 

4 
4 
3 
3 
3 

12 
12 
10 
11 
12 

0 
0 
2 
2 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

• 

o 

0 

o 

1 

ooooo 

1 

ooooo 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

ooooo 

1  ooooo 

3 

2 
1 
0 
0 

13 
12 
13 
15 

16 

0 
2 
2 

1 
0 

16  |22  ||  20  |15  ||  12  |25  ||  19  |16  ||  20  |19    ||    21  |16  ||  18  |18  ||  12  |16  ||311  |259  [60 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 

Name's  of  Senators  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  records,  with  the  name  of 
the  Senator  making  the  best  record  at  the  top. 


02              ;u9sqV 

ooooo 

ooooo 

OOOOrH 

^    -uiaojga    ISUIBSV 
O 

ooooo 

ooooo 

ooooo 

ooooo 

£ 

—  i 

OOOOO 

o 

•lua    uuintoo 

0 

x 

Bpjpnr     uo     9  j  o  A 

^ 

+J 

< 

(U 

•iua 

0 

•••H 

OJ 

<: 

g 

•STJT 

o 

(U     to 

§5  12 

5 

FT1   ° 

o 

UI—  1      D 

ma  JoqaBH  3199JO 

<-( 

SIB[SI       p  U  9  UI  B       OX 

0 

to 

0 

<L) 

n 

•XaBiuUti 

£± 

S      bfi 

}09.Iia    UO    9^0A    1S9X 

1 

S    c? 

0 

>,'§ 

. 

'S    'ON 

pJ?*'-^' 

H    T    'S    puauiB    ox 

6  ^ 

•90WUI 

0 

z 

M./        (A 

-uioo    uioaj    g    'O]& 

0) 

C/3        S 

H      T      'S      IIT309J      OX 

<1 

<i-Q 

0 

2 

'iua   sno-^s^fBAi 

^ 

*"o  S 

U 

J9PISUOO9J         OX 

5 

0 

55 

vl/     ^"* 

O 

-J93TT'BM.         U.O         9^OA 

<D 

%-l        V- 

O     Lin 

0 

(U 

•99^^IUI 

£ 

¥ 

CO 

-tuoo  <n  ing  st^o 

<D 

•samn 

0 

55 

rr\ 

*l 

S(88^^IUIUIO3    }39f9H 

0) 

U-4 

O^         UO^OJ\[         S(A\.9J(^ 

3 

3 

(3 

o 

^ 

Assemblym 

S 

TH 

;  >>    -zi 

EH^I^hC 

r-t  »~l  r-l  rH  r- 

5§Swl 

r-(  ^  rH  iH  CSJ 

+SUIBSV 


•uiaojga    •io.i 


•tna 

uo     e  +  o  A 


•ina 


-p^9a  puoogg  tua 

A'U9p    OJ, 


S1T3[SI       p  U  9  UI  T3       OJ, 


•A~.reun.ici; 


•s  -ON    _ 

a     T      'S     PU9UIB     OJ,   « 


uiojj    g    -ojsi 

a    T   'S    11^9-1   oi 


japisuooaa      oj, 


01  ma 


oj, 


S(AV9Ja 


rHrHOOO 

r-IOOiHO 

*,*,  rH.no 

ONT-IOO 

0> 

5 

OOOOO 

csoosoooo 

t-«oeo«o«» 

co 

0             0 

0 

0       000 

t- 

00 

0 

0 

*, 

CO 

- 

M 

O  O 

o 

000 

0       000 

-=. 

ro 

0 

0 

000 

0 

« 

CO 

0 

00 

0000 

c- 

*  »  *  *  * 

*      * 

* 

S 

0       0 

00 

OOOOO 

OS 

0 

0 

«. 

§ 

•-i  : 

sc 

2^c 

r"  r- 

-r 

3, 

p^ 

^ 

CO 

2^ 

o 

-H 

fl  S 
O  0 
0)  fl 

00 

0 

0 

- 

11 

•M 

CO 

t^ 
11 

q? 

:  :  :  :% 
+*'•'& 

111 

26  Gerdes  
27  Holmquist  . 
28  Otis  
29  Irwin  
30  Rutherford 

Jlljl 

eo  eo  co  coco 

1  :  :S  ': 

Character  "*"  in 

nhQT.or.tOin  "ft"  \-n 

ill 
ill 


rac 

mes 


.               ;u9sqy 

«TH^rHO 

oiocowca 

•NCQr-lrHO 

oeo^^o 

H 

H 

—  — 

—  — 

--*** 

C/3 

0 

'Ilia    uuiniOQ 

o 
fc 

0000 

0 

0 

0       000 

*p 

l-eplpnr     uo     9  ^  o  A 

01 

» 

*       * 

Is 

•ma 

0 

^ 

0 

00 

0       0 

H 

1 

*           *  * 

* 

*       * 

• 

S      0 

•Suj 

0 

* 

* 

fc  I 

-PB9H  puoo9g  ma 

9paio  ^-i^d:  ^ugp  ox 

1 

OOOOO 

ooo 

OOOOO 

oooo 

Su 
gg 

'Ilia  Joqa-BH  ^^^D 

o 

*  * 

*      *  « 

*  * 

» 

£  •« 

SI^ISI       p  U  9  UI  -B       OX 

<J 

00             0 

0 

0       0 

0       00 

o    S 

•^j-euiud: 

o 

z 

* 

* 

* 

g  £ 

^ogaia  uo  9}0A  ;s9x 

OJ 

OOOOO 

0       00 

000        0 

0             0 

|5     GO 

's  -ON 

0 

^ 

* 

* 

^Q   12 

'H    T    'S    PU9UIB    ox 

0) 

ooo 

0       OOO 

OOOOO 

OOOOO 

S  j 

•99WUI 

o 

0 

00       0 

0000 

OOOOO 

i  „ 

-raoo    uioaj    g    'Oft 
'H     T     'S     IIB09J     ox 

0) 

*  * 

» 

<S 

0 

m 

'ma   SHO-JQ^II^AV 

<( 

*-g    S 

Q 

J9PISU009J        OX 

5 

0 

o 

T-^      ^^ 

'lua  suo 

0 

0 

« 

o 

0> 

q   £ 



«  i2 

•99WUI 

1 

CO 

-raoo   oj    nig    si^o 

1 

00       0 

0 

0                   0 

•S91UH 

o 

000 

o 

OOOOO 

OOOOO 

U 

4 

o^      uopopi      s,AV9aci 

1 

*                » 

*  *      « 

<u 

'"o 

c 

3 

Assemblyni* 

Liis 
lii^i 

WWmHW 

III 

0)  >3'o  ®  O> 
^H  P-lUS  (-5 

56  Nelson  .  . 
57  Fleisher  . 
58  Flavelle  . 
59  McClelland 
60  Beardslee 

u 

I 


9 
•s 

(0 


S 

$ 

£, 
I 

o 
+j 

I 
I 

V 


00  i           ^U9sqv 

OO-W-WM 

*,*^cow 

N^OO 

NfHrH1H 

•4>0«4 

d 

£j    -UUOJ9H    ;suiBSv 

00  00  U5  US  CO 

t^t-oo^t- 

000000 

oooo 

THiHr-l 

00  00  CO 
U5  ^  O 

eq      co 

3 

V 

EH         'UIJOI9H    aoj 

-M 

sS^1 

td 

'Ilia    uumioo 

0 

OO             0 

0       O 

oooo 

ooo 

«*-« 

8 

^  fBpipnp     uo     9  i  o  A 

! 

* 

*z% 

£ 

00 

'ina 

0 

0             0 

O       0 

00       00 

O       0 

%<*$ 

8 

4) 

1 

*         * 

aJ 

O  CO  LO 
CO-* 

bo 

o 

'8u\ 

£ 

IMCO 

1 

-PB9H  puoo9s  ina 

•£ 

o 

oooo 

oooo 

sss 

6 

to 

'Hia  Joqj-BH  ^^JO 

0 

fc 

• 

* 

* 

^clSS 

I! 

^  SJBISI     p  u  9  ui  B     ox 

0) 

oooo 

00            0 

oooo 

oooo 

ss-s 

S£ 

•Aroo&d 

o 

co  co  co 

O     03 

O  jogaia  u°  9^OA  }S9X 

0) 

00       00 

000       0 

ooooo 

oooo 

co^eo 

S  2 

•s  -ON 

1 

~ooo 

Si   cd 

'H    T    *S    PU9UJB    ox 

0) 

oooo 

oooo 

ooooo 

oooo 

CO        ^r 

1  S 

•99WUZ 

o 

ooooo 

0             0 

ooooo 

00 

c^evj  o 

M        CM 

1  •  11 

ui  -uioo    uioaj    g    -o>i 

1 

co  co  co 
coco 

|||| 

'lua    8UO~-ia3ll'BA\. 

0 

* 

t-ot- 

rH  ^f<  US 

§«  o^ 

Qa9pisuoo9a      ox 

< 

00       0 

ooooo 

ooooo 

oooo 

O       O 

oo   C   ^  ^> 

2  ill 

*ina  SHO 

0 

oooo 

0 

oooo 

0       O 

rH          i-i 

0) 

*  *       * 

* 

*  •  •  • 

KSS 

«£BO 

•eaWlUI 

o 

* 

ScSS 

>O   *  flj   qj 

ID  -uioo  0^  ma  sno 

0) 

OO      O 

ooooo 

0       000 

oooo 

g-g 

olgB 

•S9inn 

o 

fc 

OO             0 

0       0 

ooooo 

oooo 

S^lo 

||  2  § 

<  S,99muilUOO   109C9H 
Ol        UO^O^f        S,AS.9Ja 

0 

* 

*  *      * 

0(M^-t 

lisl 

^  $  g  *" 

•^  :  :  : 

.  .  .  .p 

:  H  :  : 

:|  : 

^   .2    >>   <D 
Il|| 

OJ 

:6  :  :  ;| 

:  :  :  -^ 

1  i*  I  i 

':':'  m 

^•s 

L  Li-g 

Assembly 

iJi 

56  Black  . 
57  O'Neil 
18  Coghlan 
59  Hopkins 
ro  Johnstor 

alii 

re  Cullen  . 
r7  Beban  . 
r8  Macaule 
r9  McManu 

% 

SO  00  rrt 

118 

HHO 

haracter  " 
haracter  " 
ames  of  As 
a"—  Chang 

CO       CO  CO  CO  J 

L       fc       I 

U  W  A  <• 

Table  D — Record  of  Assemblymen  on  Anti 


A        ||        B       |i        C        ||        D       ||        E       ||        F       || 

Assembly  Votes  on 
Walker-Otis  Bill. 

Mott's  Motion  to  Re- 
turn Bill  to  Com- 
mittee. 

To  Reconsider  De- 
feat of  Mott's  Mo- 
tion. 

Butler's  Motion  to 
Amend  Bill. 

Si 

^ 

** 

o 

K- 

«  £3  be 

S«s 

o 

S 

fl 
o 

<D 

O 
> 

Vote  on  Motion  to 
Reconsider. 

TOTALS. 

3 

• 

1 

3 

<D 

,c; 
••-> 

1 

i 

.M 
fl 

o> 

w 

,Q 

4 

Assemblymen    |  Aye|  No  1  1  Aye|  No  1  1  Aye|  No  1  1  Aye|No  1  1  Aye|No  1  1  Aye|  No  1  1 

Barndollar    — 
Baxter 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

5 

1 
5 

1 

5 
5 

6 

l 
l 

Beardslee    

Beatty   

Beban    

Black    

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

6 
4 
6 
6 

6 

2 

Bohnett 

Butler 

Callan    

Cattell    

Coghlan     
Cogswell 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

5 
6 

6 

6 
5 

^1 
1 

Collier 

Collum 

Costar    

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

6 

6 
6 
1 

5 
4 

1 

1 

Cullen 

Dean    
Drew    

Feeley    

Flavelle   .  .   .... 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

V 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

6 
6 
6 

6 

4 

1 

1 

Fleisher    

Flint 

Gerdes   
Gibbons  

Gillis    
Greer         

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

6 
1 
6 
6 
6 

5 

Griffiths    

Hammon   
Hanlon    

Hans    

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

6 
5 
6 
6 
6 

1 

Hawk 

Hayes        

Hewitt     

Hinkle    

Holmquist    .... 
Hopkins 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

6 

3 

1 
1 

6 
3 
5 
5 

Irwin        

Johnson,   G.   L. 
Johnson,    P.   A. 

II         1 

1        II         1        II 

II                 II 

Character  "F"  shows 
Character  "A"  shows 
A  clear  record  on  the 


vote  For  the  Bill, 
vote  Against  the  Bill, 
measure  shows  six  "F's." 


-Racetrack  Gambling  Bill      Walker-Otis  Bill 


A        ||        B       ||        C 

ID     ||      E     ||      F     || 

1 

§^ 

t    i 

&$ 

1     1 

0 

£ 

3 

TOTALS. 

^ 

om 

c3 

O 

£-< 

O^H 

li 
la 

1 

Is 

0 

5 

£ 

Is 

•o 

2 

S 

S® 

|1 

S«o5 
o> 

03  CJ  -t-> 

|=i 

f« 

wil 
r- 

Butler's 
Amend 

K 

381 

O 

o 

O 

Vote  on 
Reconsi 

o 

1 

i 

Absent. 

Assemblymen    |  Aye|  No||Aye|No||Aye|No  ||Aye|No  ||Aye|No  ||Aye|No|| 


Johnson,   P.   H. 
Johnston,  T.  D. 
Juilliard    

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

1 

A 

Jb' 
F 

3 
1 
3 

5 
3 

3 

Kehoe 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Leeds   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Lightner   
Macauley    

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

5 

1 

6 

Maher 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

5 

1 

McClellan    

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

4 

2 

McManus    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Melrose       

P 

F 

h' 

h1 

h' 

H' 

g 

Mendenhall    .  .  . 
Moore    
Mott   

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

6 
2 
2 

3 

4 

1 

Nelson    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

2 

4 

Odom   
Otis    

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

3 
6 

3 

O'Neil 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Ferine    

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

5 

1 

Polsley    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Preston    
Pugh    

A 

P 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

6 

6 

Pulcif  er 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Rech     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Rutherford     .  .  . 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Sackett 

F 

F 

F 

F 

4 

o 

Schmitt 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

1 

Silver   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Stan  ton 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

g 

Stuckenbruck   . 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

1 

F 

6 

Telfer   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Transue 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

"Wagner  

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

3 

3 

Webber   

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

2 

4 

Wheelan   

A 

A 

A 

F 

1 

3 

2 

Whitney   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Wilson    . 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Wyatt    

Wyllie 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Young    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Totals    

23 

53  | 

1   30 

48  | 

|  23 

52  | 

|   44 

32  | 

67 

10  | 

19 

57| 

321 

137 

16 

Character  "F"   shows  vote  For  the  Bill. 
Character  "A"  shows  vote  Against  the  Bill. 
A  clear  record  on  the  measure  shows  six  "F*s." 


Table  E — Records  of  the  San  Francisco 


B 


Si 

tt 

1.55 

§i 

"> 

£ 

«2 

S 

rtU 

Q 

^5 

u 

K" 

£ 

q 

02 

M 

"S 

m 

^ 

>>  o3 

3 

-8 

§fe 

M 

H 

-2 
"o 

00 

<D 

1  = 

ii  ° 

S3 

0)    >> 

+->    •„ 
O    cd 

0 

feloJ 

° 

^  . 

S 

•g  3 

I§ 

ow« 

>  a 
»£ 

<jj  W 

M 

"3 

!il 

"1 

~  — 

p 

sl 

11 

H 

H 

^ 

H 

S 

w 

g 

1 

Senator        |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||  Aye|No||Aye|No 


Anthony  .  .  . 
Burnett  .  .  . 
Finn  .  .  . 

* 

0 

o 

o 

* 
* 

* 
* 

o 

0 
0 

o 

1 

0  1 
0 
0 

i     * 

o! 

0 

1    o 

* 
* 

0 

Hare  

0 

0 

0 

* 

1     * 

1    o 

0 

Hartman  .  . 
Kennedy  .  . 
Reily 

* 

0 

0 
0 

o 

* 

0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

* 

0 

o 

* 

0 

o 

0 
0 

0 
0 

Welch  
Wolfe  

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 

0 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Totals    ... 

3 

4  1 

1     6 

3  1 

4 

5  1 

1     9 

o  J 

1     3 

6  1 

1     4 

5  1 

1     5 

0  | 

3 

4 

Character  "*' 
Character  "0* 


indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform, 
indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 


Senate  Delegation  on  Sixteen  Test  Votes 


M 


*g 

±J  c 

B    S 


EC 
—    ® 

S 


so 


3  s 

S  B  S 


_ 


TOTALS. 


Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No  ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||     *  |     0 


0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

o  I 

o  1 
o  I 

0  1 

|  ' 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

j  . 

1 

0 
0 

7 
5 
0 
3 

8 
7 
15 
10 

ooooo 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

ooooo 

ooooo 

ooooo 

u 

0 
0 
0 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
5 

2 

4 
3 

16 
9 
12 
9 
13 

0  |  9 


5  |  2 


1  |  7 


8  | 


0  |  7  ||     1  |  6  ||  29  |  99 


Character  " 
Character  "0" 


indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform, 
indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 


TABLE  "F"  ON  PAGE  FOLLOWING  TABLE  "I." 


Table  G — Records  of  Out-Going 

Must  Be  Re-Elected 


a 

£ 

o,fi 

^3 

h 

i 
d 

c 

o 

b 

6^ 

'> 

OB 

3 

j-^ 

Z3 

i 

CO 

CQ 

1 

s 

"3 

.      . 

CS 

g 

rM 

e 
o 

S 

af 

11 

ltt 

o 

O 

•"S    . 

<0  X 

o 

s 

™o 

^"o 

£~ 

OJ3 

s  § 

II 

«PQ  o5 

^  fc< 

^s 

K*PQ 

*J 

^s 
|E 

i 

*c3 

23i 

fi 

gQ 

ll 

II 

H 

H 

| 

H 

H 

m 

1 

Senator        |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No[|Aye|No  ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No 


Anthony  .  .  . 
Bates   

* 

n 

o 

* 

0 

* 

0 

o 

* 

0 

1 

I 

Bell    
Black  

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

Boynton    .  .  . 

* 

0 

* 

* 

Caminetti    . 
Cartwright  . 
Curtin    
Hartman  ... 
Kennedy  .  .  . 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

Leavitt    
McCartney  . 
Miller    
Price    

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

*• 
* 

0 

0 

o 

* 

* 
• 

0 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

Reily    

* 

o 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Sanford     .  .  . 
Savage    
Weed  

* 

0 

0 

o 

* 

o 

0 
0 

* 

* 

0 

o 

* 

0 

o 

* 
* 

Willis    
Wright    .... 

0 
0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

Totals    ... 

5 

8 

1     9 

11  1 

16 

4   1 

1  10 

8  1 

1  10 

9 

1   12 

6  1 

1     4 

12   | 

14 

3 

Character 
Character 


indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform, 
indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 


Senators  on  Sixteen  Test  Votes 

to  Sit  in  Next  Senate 


M 


Test  Vote  on  Rail- 
road Regulation. 

Initiative  Amend- 
ment. 

5 

0 

§ 

o 

1 
3 

ft 

1 

if 

SQ 

c 
o 

la 

o 

o  ° 

fi 

®l 

CO 

Ss 

"I 

TOTALS. 

£ 

<D 
tf 

Against  Reform. 

Aye|No 

Aye|No  | 

Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No  ||Aye|No||Aye|No|iAye|No||     *|     0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

0 

* 

0 

0 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

7 
4 
15 
11 
13 

8 
10 
0 

1 
1 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 

0 

0 

12 
12 
10 
0 
5 

3 
0 
3 
16 

9 

* 

0 
0 

0 

0 

1     * 
* 

0 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

4 
5 
11 
4 
2 

12 
8 
2 
11 
12 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

13 

4 
1 
5 
9 

2 
11 
13 
11 

7 

8  |12  ||     9  |10  ||     6  |12  ||     9 

9  ||  11  |  9    ||    12 

7  ||     7  |11  ||     4  |10 

147  |140 

Character  "*"  indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 


Table  H — Records  of  Holdover 

Senators  Who  Will  Sit 


A       ||        B       ||        C       ||       D        ||        E       ||        F       ||       G 

H 

o 

4-> 

•  i 

^3 

1 

i 

1 

0) 

Bfi 

+j 

c 

C 

^ 

O0 

^ 

£ 

2 

-H 

Q 

~ 

0 

^ 

02 

02 

i 

C 
O 

m 

02 

3 

o  o 
o-1-1 

II 

§« 

c 

0 

C 
O 

&j 

Ig 

is 

oj 

<K  >> 

•*->  U 

|| 

O 

M 

0) 

1 

ft 

o>> 

•dU 

0 

P  3 

O"Z3 

>W 

T3 

§^ 

g° 

I* 

E 

gj 

H^ 

!* 

1" 

l5 

W 

Senator        |  Aye|No  1 1  Aye|No  1 1  Aye|No  1 1  Aye|No  1 1  Aye|No|  |  Aye|No|  |  Aye|No|  |  Aye|No 


Bills   

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

• 
* 

0 
0 
0 

• 

* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

Birdsall    .  .  . 
Burnett    .  .  . 
Campbell    .  . 
Cutten    

Estudillo    .  . 
Finn     . 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

Hare    

Holohan    ... 
Kurd    

Lewis    
Martinelli    . 
Roseberry    . 
Rush    

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

Stetson     .  .  . 

Strobridge   . 
Thompson    . 
Walker    .... 
Welch    .... 
Wolfe    .... 

1 
o 

0 

«» 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

* 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

Totals     .  .  |     9 

8  |!     4  |16  ||  17 

3  ||  10  |  7  ||     6  |13  ||  11 

9  ||     4  |10  ||  15  |  2 

Character  "*  '  indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform. 
Character  "0  '  indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 

Senators  on  Sixteen  Test  Votes 

in  Senate  of   1911 


1       ||       J        II       K       ||        L       ||       M        ||       N       ||       0 

p 

fc 

•o 

§ 

3 

T3 

C 
0> 

-O  w 
SS 

SQ 

0) 

3 

i- 

f->  0) 

'O  o 

TOTALS. 

S 

C  oi 
°3 
bfl 

1 

a 
o 

s 

<J 
3  . 

*, 

CO 

c 

Oo 

li 

g 

1 

£ 

«  0> 

© 

ft 

t»    ^ 

o 

S-u 

§ 

> 

•o 

fi 

IS 

1 

o  c 
i  ® 

ffl 

111 
Ifift 

§1 

Jffl 

ih 

—•"a! 

1 

| 

H 

t-t 

i_3 

K 

^ 

o 

h 

^ 

Aye|No||Aye|No  ||Aye|No  ||Aye|No 

|Aye|No  ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||     * 

0 

i  ° 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

12 

* 

* 

0 

* 

*    ' 

• 

* 

* 

11 

3 

0 

0 

* 

0 

* 

5 

7 

* 

• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

14 

2 

0 

* 

* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 

12 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

10 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

• 

• 

11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

11 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

5 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

12 

• 

» 

• 

* 

• 

* 

14 

1 

0 

* 

* 

* 

10 

2 

* 

* 

* 

10 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

10 

4 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

• 

15 

1 

0 

• 

• 

* 

* 

* 

14 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

13 

8   |10 

11 

5  ||     6  |13  ||  10 

7  ||     9  |10    ||      9  |  9  ||  11  |  7  ||     8  |  6  |J164  |119 

Character 
Character 


•0" 


indicates  vote  on  side  of  Progress  and  Reform, 
indicates  vote  against  Progress  and  Reform. 


Table  I — Records  of  Assemblymen  on 


1 

3      1 

M         > 

©3 

ll 

•^  oo 

j^eq 

>  >>"* 

K*  v^"* 

.Q    . 

3 

2 

•dlS 

p  i 

ill 

IP 

I 

^  ? 

fl 

" 

Assemblymen         |  Aye    |   No    ||  Aye  |   No    ||  Aye  |   No    ||  Aye  |  No 


Barndollar    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Baxter 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Beardslee 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Beatty    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Beban    

A 

F 

F 

A 

Black    
Bohnett    

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

Butler 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Callan  

F 

F 

F 

F 

Cattell    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Coghlan    

A 

A 

Cogswell    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Collier 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Collum         

F 

F 

F 

F 

Costar    

A     | 

I 

A 

A 

1 

A 

Cronin   
Cullen    

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

? 

Dean                     o 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Drew 

F 

F 

Feeley    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Flavelle    
Fleisher   

A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

Flint 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Gerdes 

F 

Gibbons    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gillis    
Greer    

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

Griffiths 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Hammon       .           . 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Hanlon    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Hans  
Hawk    

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

Hayes 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Hewitt    . 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Hinkle    

A 

A 

F 

A 

Holmquist      

A 

A 

F 

A 

Hopkins     

F 

F 

F 

F 

Irwin 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Johnson,  Grove  L. 
Johnson,  P.  A  

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

Character  "F' 
Character  "A' 


indicates  vote  For  the  Bills, 
indicates  vote  Against  the  Bills. 


Four  Test  Votes  on  Anti- Japanese  Bills 


Assembly  Bill 

06 
t- 

1 

Assembly  Bill 

e<5 

eo 

g 

>f! 

1 

s 

% 

bS 

Q 

P 

X 

Second  Vote 

A  •.tort.nUlf  -Dill 

* 

f 

5  6 

1" 

i 

Assemblymen 

Aye 

No    \ 

Aye 

No    \ 

\  Aye 

No 

Aye 

No 

Johnson,    P.    H  
Johnston,  T.  D.  .  .  . 
Juilliard 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

Kehoe   

A 

F 

F 

F 

Leeds    

A 

A 

F* 

A 

Lightner    
Macauley 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

Maher    

F 

F 

F 

F 

McClellan 

A 

A 

A 

McManus    

A 

F 

F 

F 

Melrose    
Mendenhall 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

Moore    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Mott    

A 

F 

F 

F 

Nelson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Odom    

F 

F 

F 

Otis    

A 

F 

F 

F 

O'Neil    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Ferine 

A 

F 

F 

A 

Polsley    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Preston    

F 

A 

F 

A 

Pugh 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Pulcif  er    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Rech 

\ 

A 

A 

A 

Rutherford    

A 

A 

Sackett   
Schmitt      

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

Silver 

A 

F 

F 

A 

Stan  ton               .... 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Stuckenbruck    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Telfer 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Transue  

A 

A 

A 

A 

"Wagner 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Webber             .     .  . 

F 

F 

F 

Wheelan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Whitney      

A 

F 

F 

F 

"Wilson 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Wyatt 

Wyllie   

A 

A 

F 

A 

Young    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Totals   

28 

48     \ 

39 

35 

\    46 

28     \ 

37 

41 

Character  "F"   indicates  vote  For  the  Bills. 
Character   "A"    indicates  vote  Against  the  Bills. 
*  Leeds  changed  his  vote  from  "no"  to  "aye"  to  give  notice  of 
reconsideration. 


§ 

o 


DO 


Q 
"S 


•fi 


0) 

3 


aj             -*u8sqv 

NrHWOrH 

,M*,«<»rt 

rHrHONN 

<NCO^ 

CO 
CO 

5<     'U1JOJ8H      ^SUIBSy 

eoot^ooo 

i-H 

UiOSrH  "*  CO 

OO^t-00 

uxo*, 

OO 

c 

o 

EH         -UIJOJ8H    JOji 

^O^^HC, 

*.«•*** 

OO^IMtH 

^MN 

5 

"Ilia    uumioo 

0 

00       0 

0 

0       0 

0 

- 

[Btoipnf     uo     8  3.  o  A 

g 

*              * 

*      *      * 

« 

'ma 

o 

^i 

OOO       0 

0 

00       0 

0 

Ci 

paojuBjg      uo      ejoA 

s 

<1 

* 

*      * 

*  * 

ed 

ITS 

o 

' 

'Su\ 

^ 

-PB8H  puooag  nia 

<D 

>. 

< 

o 

0 

00 

0 

Irt 

S 

"IITa  JoqaBji  >198JO 

o 

^ 

*         *  * 

*       * 

«      * 

* 

oo 

0) 

SIBISI       p  U  9  UI  B       OJQ 

^ 

< 

00 

0             0 

00       0 

0       0 

O5 

•M 
• 

c 

0 

% 

* 

* 

CO 

§ 

VKUKI  uo  a»oA  ,S9X 

0) 

>> 

000        O 

00             0 

00000 

000 

in 

1 

•g     'O^J 

o 

* 

-H 

Si 

H     T      'S     PU8UIB     OJ, 

$ 

00             0 

00       00 

00000 

0       0 

rH 

s  1 

£   •  fl 

•88WUI 

0 

00000 

00 

t- 

<2£o 

§11 

!JJ 

-uioo    tuoaj    g    -ON 

H      T      "S      IIB08J      OJ, 

^ 

* 

* 

SSI 

^«s 

rtiri  rti 

"HTa     SHO'-ra^H'B.M. 

^p 

*            * 

*       * 

* 

• 

« 

sSS 

03        o 

U 

18PJSU008J        OJ, 

5 

00       0 

0       0 

00       00 

o 

0 

3)  W  S 
°£P 

•ma  spo 

0 

00       0 

00       0 

00       OO 

0 

^o'S, 

«M«^    ^ 

Op4  ft 

U 

< 

*            * 

*       * 

* 

*       * 

«> 

*+>" 

1s" 

•eeWra 

o 

» 

*      * 

* 

LO 

wrtos 
§^o 

111 

CD 

< 

00       0 

00        0 

00000 

0 

IM 

iH 

2£o 

5lfi 

wmH 

o 

0             0 

00 

000       0 

00 

o 

rH 

III 

Ol         UOpOJ\[         S,A\.8JQ 

03 

*  * 

*            *  * 

* 

* 

t- 

cd  oJ*" 

££  03 

?lo 

0 

s  >>  g 

s 

I 

^? 

o     S     5 

1   1  1 

fi    "^    p 

• 

to 

>> 

3 

1 

O! 

^ 

•tJ  C  M  £•-* 

Illls 

lilll 
Hill 

III 

ill 

72 

5 

3 
H 

Character  ' 
Character  ' 
"a"  —  Chang 

XXVI 


OUTLINE  OF  AND  ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF 
THE  POSTAL  DIRECT  PRIMARY. 


By   SENATOR   L.    H.    ROSEBERRY,   Who    Introduced  the 
Postal  Direct  Primary  Bill  at  the  Ses- 
sion of  1909. 


In  order  to  understand  the  full  purpose  and  effect  of  the  pro- 
posed Postal  Direct  Primary  law,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
purpose  of  any  system  of  nominations  by  a  Direct  Primary. 

The  sole  complaint  against  the  present  system  of  nominations 
by  conventions  is  based  upon  the  objection  that  party  nominations 
are  made  by  a  few  interested  parties,  and  that  the  popular  choice 
is  absolutely  ignored.  To  remedy  this  evil  the  system  of  direct 
nominations  by  the  voters  has  been  suggested  at  primary  elec- 
tions. It  therefore  follows  that  that  system,  or  primary,  which 
will  get  out  the  largest  number  of  votes  or  the  greatest  expres- 
sion of  the  people  on  the  choice  of  candidates  is,  of  necessity, 
the  best  primary  law.  If  it  is  true  that  all  present  direct  pri- 
maries, which  provide  for  voting  at  a  certain  time  and  place  in 
person,  in  the  form  that  general  elections  are  now  conducted, 
only  draw  out  a  little  over  one-half  of  the  registered  vote 
of  all  parties,  it  then  follows  beyond  question,  that  all  present 
direct  primary  laws  are  only  half  successful.  Upon  an  examina- 
tion of  statistics  gathered  from  the  various  States  in  which  direct 
primary  laws  are  now  in  operation,  it  is  seen  that  only  55%  to  60% 
of  the  registered  vote  within  those  States  has  ever  been  cast  at 
any  single  primary  election.  For  instance,  at  the  primary  election 
held  in  the  State  of  Oregon  in  the  fall  of  1908,  55%  of  the. regis- 
tered Republican  vote  was  cast,  and  less  than  25%  of  the  Demo- 
cratic vote.  In  the  State  of  Washington  about  57%  of  the  regis- 
tered vote  was  cast  in  1908,  the  only  vote  yet  taken  under  the  new 
Direct  Primary  law.  In  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  while  60%  of  the 
total  registered  vote  was  cast  in  1906,  only  a  little  over  40%  was 
cast  at  the  primary  election  held  in  the  year  1908.  Other  statis- 
tics could  be  offered  from  all  the  other  States,  having  the  direct 
primary  system  of  nominations,  from  which  it  would  appear  that 
practically  a  little  over  55%  or  even  less  of  the  registered  vote 
has  been  secured  at  any  direct  primary  election.  Therefore,  based 
upon  these  figures,  it  becomes  patent  that  the  present  form  of 
direct  nominations,  to  wit:  voting  at  a  certain  time  and  place  in 
person  only,  under  the  same  rules  and  regulations  as  at  general 
elections,  is  only  half  successful. 

It  was  for  the  -purpose  of  bringing  out  at  least  a  part  of  this 
great  unvoted  45%  of  qualified  electors,  to  take  a  part  in  naming 
the  candidates  who  should  go  before  the  people  at  the  general 
elections,  that  the  Postal  Direct  Primary  law  was  conceived. 

While  there  is  no  present  example  of  the  working  of  a  system 
of  direct  nominations  through  a  ballot  cast  through  the  mails  for 


XXV11 


public  officials,  there  are  a  number  of  instances  in  which  ballots 
are  being  taken  by  mail  with  wonderful  success  and  completeness. 
Formerly,  labor  unions,  fraternal  societies,  chambers  of  com- 
merce, Granger  organizations,  alumni  associations,  and  other  civic, 
religious  and  benevolent  associations,  balloted  on  propositions  sub- 
mitted to  their  membership  in  the  form  that  primary  and  general 
elections  are  now  held  in  public  elections.  The  vote  secured  from 
their  memberships  was  so  meager  and  unsatisfactory  that  the 
system  of  voting  by  mail  was  inaugurated,  and  with  such  splendid 
results,  that  now  it  is  being  used  exclusively  by  a  majority  of 
the  above  organizations,  as  a  method  of  voting  upon  propositions 
and  officers  coming  before  them  for  election.  Where  only  10% 
to  15%  of  the  votes  were  cast  under  the  old  plan  of  voting  in  per- 
son at  a  particular  time  and  place,  75%,  and  even  90%  of  the 
votes  are  now  cast  through  the  mails,  and  it  is  significant  to 
note  that  the  plan  of  voting  by  mail  has  been  found  by  the  or- 
ganizations using  it  to  be  free  from  any  objections.  This  fact, 
together  with  the  unanimous  vote  cast,  led  to  the  idea  of  cast- 
ing votes  by  mail  at  direct  primaries  for  the  nomination  of  pub- 
lic officers  by  political  parties.  The  system  that  has  been  pro- 
posed is  extremely  simple,  and  it  appears  highly  reasonable  and 
practicable.  A  short  outline  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  will  as- 
sist in  an  understanding  of  the  arguments  offered  in  its  favor, 
and  those  advanced  to  refute  the  objections  urged  against  this 
Postal  Direct  Primary  Act. 

In  the  first  place,  each  elector,  at  the  time  of  registering,  de- 
clares his  party  allegiance,  and  this  is  entered  upon  his  original 
affidavit  of  registration.  At  the  same  time,  he  is  given  a  party 
voting  number,  which  is  written  or  printed  upon  his  affidavit  of 
registration.  The  Secretary  of  State,  every  four  years,  declares 
the  color  of  ballots  to  be  used  by  each  party  separately.  For  in- 
stance, all  Republican  ballots  throughout  the  State,  at  every  elec- 
tion must  be  printed  upon  pink  colored  paper  and  none  other; 
the  Democratic  ballot  upon  white  colored  paper  and  none  other, 
and  so  on  among  the  other  political  parties. 

In  order  for  a  candidate's  name  to  be  proposed  to  go  on  to  the 
primary  ballot,  it  must  be  proposed  by  a  prescribed  number  of 
qualified  electors,  within  the  district  in  which  that  candidate  is 
to  be  elected,  which  names  must  be  subscribed  to  a  verified  peti- 
tion. This  entitles  the  candidate's  name  to  be  printed  upon  the 
primary  ballot.  Within  ten  days  before  the  primary,  or  return 
day,  the  clerk  of  the  board  or  body  which  is  delegated  by  law  to 
prepare  for  election  matters  must  print,  prepare  and  send  out, 
primary  election  ballots  for  each  separate  political  party  through 
the  United  States  mails  in  the  following  manner:  To  each  elector 
within  the  jurisdiction  is  mailed  a  plain  unmarked  envelope,  ad- 
dressed to  the  business  or  home  address  of  each  separate  elector, 
containing  a  self-addressed  and  stamped  return  envelope,  return- 
able to  the  Board  of  Election  of  that  precinct,  together  with  one 
party  primary  election  ballot,  for  the  use  of  that  elector.  If  the 
elector  happens  to  be  a  Republican  the  color  of  his  ballot  will  be 
pink,  and  only  the  names  of  the  Republican  candidates  will  be 
printed  thereon.  On  the  outside  end  of  the  ballot  is  printed  the 
elector's  party  voting  number,  which  voting  number  is  separate 
and  distinct  from  every  other  voting  number  in  that  precinct. 
On  the  outside  end  of  the  return  envelope  is  a  line  left  for  the 
original  signature  of  the  elector  to  whom  the  ballot  is  mailed, 
whereon  he  must  either  subscribe  his  signature  in  ink,  or  if  he 
be  an  incapable  voter,  and  is  assisted,  must  have  his  own  name 
subscribed  thereon,  together  with  the  names  of  two  freeholders 


XXV111 


in  that  precinct,  who  assisted  him  in  voting.  Upon  receipt  of 
the  envelope  containing  his  ballot,  the  voter  marks  a  cross  (X) 
at  the  names  of  the  candidates  for  whom  he  votes,  and  then  folds 
his  ballot  so  that  all  the  names  thereon  are  turned  inside  and 
out  of  sight,  and  his  party  voting  number  appears  on  the  out- 
side end  of  the  envelope.  (In  the  same  manner  that  he  now 
folds  his  ballot  at  a  general  election.)  He  then  encloses  this 
ballot  in  the  stamped  return  envelope,  seals  the  same,  signs  his 
name  on  the  end  of  the  envelope,  and  deposits  it  in  a  post- 
office  box.  It  then  goes  to  the  postoffice  directed  by  law,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Primary  or  Return  Board,  who  alone  are  authorized 
by  law  to  receive  these  envelopes  from  the  postmaster,  and  then 
only  on  the  day  and  hour  designated  by  law  and  in  public. 
Upon  return  day,  the  Board  receives  all  of  these  primary  election 
envelopes  from  the  postoffice,  takes  them  to  a  public  place,  and 
after  counting  the  number  received,  and  comparing  with  the 
number  originally  sent  put,  compares  each  signature  on  each  en- 
velope with  the  same  signature  subscribed  on  the  original  affi- 
davit of  registration,  and  if  it  be  genuine,  opening  the  envelope, 
removing  the  ballot  therefrom,  without  opening  the  same,  ob- 
serving that  the  color  of  the  ballot  corresponds  to  the  party 
color  to  which  that  elector  belongs,  then  tearing  off  the  voting 
number,  which  appears  on  the  end  of  the  ballot,  after  comparing 
it  with  the  voting  number  written  on  that  elector's  affidavit  of 
registration,  and  then  finally  depositing  the  ballot  into  a  general 
ballot  box,  into  which  all  the  ballots  of  each  political  party  are 
deposited.  It  will  thus  appear  that  every  ballot  has  been  checked 
in  three  ways  to  identify  it  as  being  the  original  ballot  sent  to  that 
elector,  and  as  the  one  cast  personally  by  him:  First,  it  was 
contained  in  an  envelope  bearing  his  original  signature;  it  bore 
his  own  party  voting  number,  which  was  separate  and  distinct 
from  every  other  party  voting  number  in  that  precinct,  and  was 
printed  under  the  authority  of  law  only  upon  one  ballot,  namely, 
the  ballot  he  receives;  and  finally  it  was  upon  the  color  of 
paper  which  only  the  political  party  with  which  that  elector  was 
affiliated  was  allowed  by  law  to  use.  Every  other  political  party's 
ballots  were  printed  upon  different  colored  paper. 

This  makes  it  practically  impossible  for  any  ballot  to  be  cast 
or  counted  other  than  the  one  lawfully  mailed  and  regularly  re- 
ceived and  voted  and  mailed  in  person  by  the  elector  to  whom 
it  was  sent. 

Even  the  most  prejudiced  opponents  of  the  Postal  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill  admit  that  there  are  no  practical  reasons  why  it  would 
not  operate  very  successfully  in  the  rural  districts  and  the  smaller 
cities  and  towns.  Such  an  admission  is  a  very  far-reaching  argu- 
ment for  the  bill  as  a  general  working  measure  for  direct  nomi- 
nations. It  is  an  open  confession  that  the  plan  is  workable  and 
meritorious.  The  only  objection  that  has  been  urged  with  any 
semblance  of  force  is  the  argument  that  the  ballot  could  be  easily 
corrupted  in  large  cities,  where  the  opportunities  for  fraud  are 
great,  and  where  the  intelligence  and  honesty  of  certain  classes 
of  voters  is  low.  It  is  suggested  with  considerable  merit  that 
among  the  foreign  and  ignorant  classes  in  the  great  centers  of 
population,  corruption  of  suffrage  is  a  matter  easily  accomplished; 
that  there  would  be  many  of  such  voters  willing  to  lend  them- 
selves to  any  scheme  to  deliver  their  primary  ballots  to  certain 
persons  to  be  voted  as  they  desired  under  the  names  of  the  in- 
dividual electors. 

At  first  blush,  this  argument  appears  to  have  some  force,  but 
upon  close  reading  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  and  its  necessasy 


XXIX 


effect  upon  the  practical  operation  of  a  primary  campaign,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  this  sole  objection  is  largely  augumentative. 
In  the  first  place,  as  pointed  out  above,  each  ballot  must  be  cast 
by  the  person  to  whom  it  was  sent,  for  it  is  contained  in  an  en- 
velope bearing  the  elector's  own  known  signature.  Therefore 
none  other  can  vote  the  ballot.  In  the  second  place,  the  bill 
provides  for  extreme  penal  penalties  for  any  one  tampering  with 
ballots,  assisting  a  voter  in  the  marking  of  a  ballot  (other  than 
incapable  voters),  standing  about  and  watching  an  elector  mark  his 
ballot,  or  in  any  wise  influencing,  or  observing  a  voter  in  the 
marking  of  his  ballot  at  the  time  it  is  voted,  sealed  in  the  en- 
velope and  dropped  in  the  postofflce.  All  the  penalties  are  for 
imprisonment  and  not  for  fines.  This,  then,  will  force  any  plan 
to  secure  ballots  or  corrupt  the  same  to  be  done  secretly  and 
illegally.  It  must  appear  that  there  can  be  no  extensive  system 
of  vote  corruption  carried  on  without  discovery.  It  must  further 
appear  that  there  would  be  extremely  few  who  would  care  to 
general  or  direct  any  extensive  plan  of  corrupting  or  influencing 
primary  ballots.  It  would  be  too  risky  a  proceeding.  If  then 
votes  were  corrupted,  it  would  have  to  be  done  very  secretly  and 
amongst  only  a  trusted  few.  Therefore  the  percentage  influenced 
in  this  manner  could  not  be  large. 

Another  bar  to  any  tampering  with  ballots  would  be  the  check 
which  each  political  party  and  each  candidate  would  have  upon 
the  other.  It  would  be  a  matter  of  political  capital  for  one  party 
to  detect  leaders  or  organizations  within  another  party  tamper- 
ing with  or  corrupting  the  vote  at  its  primary  election.  The 
various  candidates  for  the  different  offices  within  the  same  party 
would  watch  one  another  with  extreme  vigilance  to  detect  any  at- 
tempt to  influence  or  corrupt  the  ballots  against  them. 

Lastly,  it  is  suggested  that  because  of  the  fact  that  these 
primary  election  ballots  would  be  sent  at  the  same  time  to 
thousands  of  different  places  throughout  the  precinct  and  city, 
and  would  be  opened  in  offices  and  in  homes  on  the  same  day. 
and  in  all  probability  fully  75%  of  them  would  be  voted  and  re- 
mailed  on  the  same  day  received;  that  it  would  be  practically  Im- 
possible to  devise  any  system  that  would  reach  out  and  get  these 
countless  ballots  in  a  thousand  different  places  within  a  space  of  a 
few  hours  or  a  day.  They  would  be  too  scattered  to  be  gotten 
hold  of  or  traced  with  any  degree  of  success. 

It  must  appear  from  a  broad-minded  consideration  of  the 
practical  workings  of  this  Postal  Direct  Primary  law  that  there 
is  no  valid  reason  why  it  would  not  work  with  splendid  success 
even  in  the  congested  and  illiterate  districts  of  our  larger  cities. 
But  even  admitting  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  ignorant  and  vicious  vote  could  be  corrupted  by  the 
bosses,  it  certainly  could  not  be  large.  It  could  not  possibly  ex- 
ceed ten  per  cent  of  the  registered  vote.  In  light  of  the  fact  that 
this  sytem  would  bring  out  at  least  twenty-five  per  cent  more 
votes  than  any  other  primary  law  has  ever  succeeded  in  bringing 
out,  it  is  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  corrupted  vote  would  be  far 
outweighed  and  overbalanced  by  the  much  larger  percentage  of 
decent  vote  that  would  be  secured  for  the  first  time  by  means  of 
this  postal  system  of  voting.  The  argument,  then,  is  unanswer- 
able in  favor  of  this  Postal  Direct  Primary  law. 

And  it  would  for  the  first  time  give  the  intelligent  and  hon- 
est elements  in  all  political  parties  the  direct  control  of  the 
power  of  nomination  for  public  offices.  Moreover,  the  mere  fact 
that  it  would  cause  a  larger  number  of  people  to  vote  would  be 
of  inestimable  value,  for  it  wo'uld  tend  to  rouse  and  awaken 


XXX 


public  interest  in  civic  affairs  and  by  thus  doing  would  educate 
and  train  the  minds  of  the  better  classes  in  election  affairs,  and 
could  not  help  but  raise  the  honesty  and  power  of  popular  suf- 
frage. In  other  words,  it  would  accomplish  in  the  fullest  degree, 
the  results  sought  to  be  obtained  by  every  direct  primary  law, 
namely,  a  popular  choice  of  candidates  for  public  office,  with  the 
power  of  selection  for  once  actually  in  the  hands  of  the  hon- 
est electors. 

In  conclusion,  it  might  be  well  to  mention  that  this  system  of 
voting  by  mail  would  protect  the  suffrage  of  many  of  our  best 
citizens,  who,  under  present  laws,  are  practically  disfranchised. 
Such  men  are  travelers,  the  sick,  sailors,  trainmen,  and  other  men 
who,  by  reason  of  their  occupation  or  misfortune,  are  forced  to 
be  absent  from  the  place  of  their  voting  precincts  on  election  day, 
but  who  could  and  would  vote  if  an  opportunity  was  extended 
to  them  to  vote  by  mail.  This  would  constitute  no  small  class 
of  voters. 

DR.    MONTGOMERY'S    REPORT. 

55  Dr.  Montgomery's  report  to  the  Senate  was  as  follows: 

Palo  Alto,  Cal.,  March  22,  1909. 
Lieutenant-Governor  Warren  R.  Porter, 

President  State  Senate,   Sacramento,  Cal. 

On  the  afternoon  of  March  21,  1909,  about  4:30  p.  m.,  J.  L. 
Martin,  Sergeant-at-Arms  of.  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  California, 
called  on  me  and  informed  me  that  I  had  been  designated  by  the 
President  of  the  Senate  to  proceed  with  him  to  Palo  Alto,  and  to 
consult  with  the  physicians  of  Senator  Marshall  Black,  to  ascertain 
if  Senator  Black's  health  was  such  as  to  permit  him  to  go  to  Sac- 
ramento. I  arrived  at  the  office  of  Dr.  Howard  Black,  Senator 
Black's  physician,  at  about  9:30  p.  m.,  March  21,  1909,  and  there  met 
Dr.  Howard  Black,  Dr.  H.  B.  Reynolds,  Dr.  J.  C.  Spencer  and  Dr. 
R.  L.  Wilbur.  These  physicians  said  they  had  held  a  consultation 
and  had  made  an  examination  of  Senator  Marshall  Black  that  after- 
noon; according  to  their  statement,  Senator  Marshall  Black  had 
arrived  in  Palo  Alto  about  five  days  previously  suffering  from  in- 
flammation of  the  eyes,  commonly  called  "pink  eye,"  and  that  this 
inflammation  of  the  eyes  had  almost  entirely  cleared  up,  but  that 
the  inflammation  traveled  down  the  throat  and  bronchial  tubes. 
According  to  their  statement  to  me  on  the  evening  of  March  21, 
1909,  Senator  Marshall  Black  was  suffering  from  broncho-pneu- 
monia, and  symptoms  of  inflammation  in  the  lower  lobe  of  the  left 
lung,  the  temperature  that  afternon  was  ninety-nine  and  the  pulse 
ninety.  The  heart  was  in  good  condition.  The  cough  was  severe 
and  the  expectoration  abundant.  I  stated  to  these  physicians  that 
I  was  delegated  by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  California  to  make 
a  thorough  and  complete  examination  of  Senator  Black  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  at  what  time  it  would  be  safe  for  Senator 
Black  to  proceed  to  Sacramento.  I  was  informed  by  Dr.  Howard 
Black  that  Senator  Marshall  Black  would  not  permit  me  to  see 
him.  I  then  asked  Senator  Black's  physicians,  individually  and 
collectively,  if  in  their  opinion,  in  Senator  Black's  present  physical 
condition  any  serious  inconvenience  or  injury  would  accrue  to 
Senator  Black  from  a  personal  examination  by  me.  They  all  stated 
that,  on  their  part,  they  were  perfectly  willing  that  such  examina- 
tion should  be  held  by  the  Senate  physician,  and  that  such  an 
examination  in  their  opinion  could  dp  no  injury.  I  asked  if  the 
patient  was  in  sound  and  disposing  mind.  I  was  answered  he  was. 
At  about  10  a.  m.,  March  22,  1909,  I  again  called  on  Dr.  Howard 
Black,  renewing  my  request  of  the  previous  evening  to  see  Senator 
Marshall  Black.  Senator  Black,  through  the  physician,  still  de- 


XXXI 


dined  to  receive  me.  I  then  asked  Dr.  Howard  Black  when,  in  his 
opinion,  Senator  Marshall  Black  would  be  in  condition  to  proceed  to 
Sacramento.  He  said  that  at  the  consultation  of  the  previous  day  it 
was  concluded  that  it  would  be  a  week  before  Senator  Black  would 
be  in  such  a  condition  as  to  enable  him  with  safety  to  undertake  the 
journey.  As  this  consultation  was  held  on  March  21st,  it  would, 
in  their  opinion,  be  March  28th  before  Senator  Black  would  be 
in  a  condition  to  proceed  to  Sacramento.  I  asked  if,  in  his 
opinion,  Senator  Black  was  convalescing.  He  said  that  in  his 
opinion  he  was.  He  said  that  Senator  Black's  temperature  this 
morning  was  100,  his  pulse  90,  his  cough  still  severe,  and  there 
still  was  evidence  of  inflammation  in  the  lower  lobe  of  the  left 
lung.  Personally,  from  what  I  know  of  Senator  Black's  physicians, 
I  believe  these  facts  to  be  true.  Taking  it  for  granted  that  these 
facts  are  true,  I  do  not  find  that,  from  them  alone,  I  can  conclude 
that  Senator  Black  is  unable  to  proceed  to  Sacramento.  In  order 
to  concur  in  this  opinion  of  Senator  Black's  physicians  I  would  have 
to  see  the  patient. 

DOUGLASS  W.  MONTGOMERY,  M.  D. 

Delegated  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Warren   R.    Porter   to   examine 
into  the  state  of  health  of  Senator  Marshall  Black. 

THE    ANTI-JAPANESE    BILL'S    RESOLUTION. 

94  The  resolution  was  in  full  as  follows: 

Whereas,  Assembly  Bill,  No.  14,  introduced  by  Mr.  Johnson  of 
Sacramento,  and  reading  as  follows: 

AN  ACT 
To  Amend  Section  1662  of  the  Political  Code 

The  people  of  the  State  of  California,  represented  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows: 

Section  1.  Section  1662  of  the  Political  Code  is  hereby  amended 
so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

1662.  Every  school,  unless  otherwise  provided  by  law,  must  be 
open  for  the  admission  of  all  children  between  six  and  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  residing  in  the  district  and  the  board  of  school 
trustees,  or  city  board  of  education,  have  power  to  admit  adults 
and  children  not  residing  in  the  district,  whenever  good  reasons 
exist  therefor.  Trustees  shall  have  the  power  to  exclude  children 
of  filthy  or  vicious  habits,  or  children  suffering  from  contagious 
or  infectious  diseases,  and  also  to  establish  separate  schools  for 
Indian  children  and  for  the  children  of  Mongolian,  or  Japanese, 
or  Chinese  descent.  When  such  separate  schools  are  established, 
Indian,  Chinese,  Japanese  or  Mongolian  children  must  not  be 
admitted  into  any  other  school;  provided,  that  in  cities  and  towns 
in  which  the  kindergarten  has  been  adopted  or  may  hereafter  be 
adopted  as  part  of  the  public  primary  schools,  children  may  be 
admitted  to  such  kindergarten  classes  at  the  age  of  four  years; 
and  provided  further,  that  in  cities  or  school  districts  in  which 
separate  classes  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  established,  for  the 
instruction  of  the  deaf,  children  may  be  admitted  to  such  classes 
at  the  age  of  three  years. 
Is  now  pending  before  this  Assembly;  and 

Whereas,  It  has  been  represented  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  that  the  passage  of  this  bill  will,  in  some  manner 
undisclosed,  disturb  the  relations  now  existing  between  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  the  government  of  Japan;  and 

Whereas,  The  President  of  the  United  States  has  made  known 
to  this  Assembly,  through  the  Governor  of  this  State  and  through 
the  Speaker  of  this  Assembly,  his  wish  that  said  bill  be  not 
passed;  and 


XXX11 


Whereas,  The  President  of  the  United  States  has  caused  it  to 
be  represented  to  this  body  that  it  is  his  judgment  that  said  bill 
would  conflict  with  the  treaty  now  existing  between  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  the  government  of  Japan,  and 
because  of  such  conflict  the  passage  of  such  bill  would  be  beyond 
the  power  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  and 

Whereas,  The  Governor  of  this  State  and  the  Speaker  of  this 
Assembly  have  conveyed  to  this  body  their  desire  that  this  bill 
be_not  passed;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  the  desire  of  this  body  to  accede  to  the  wishes 
of  the  Chief  Executive  of  this  State,  and  the  Speaker  of  this 
Assembly;  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  it  is  fitting  and  proper  that  a  statement  of  the 
position  of  this  Assembly  upon  this  question  be  made,  to  the  end 
that  a  mistaken  impression  do  not  result  from  the  failure  of 
the  Assembly  to  pass  this  bill;  be  it  further 

Resolved,   That  such  position   is  as  follows: 

1.  The  school  system  of  the  State  of  California  is  an  institu- 
tion of  the  State  alone,  maintained,  supported,  conducted  and  con- 
trolled wholly  under  and  in  accordance  with  the  powers  reserved 
to   the   State. 

2.  That  the  power  to  maintain,  conduct  and  control  the  State 
school   system   has  not  been  granted   to  the  Federal  Government. 

3.  That  the  Legislature  of  California  may  properly  pass  any  law 
relative   to  the   school   system  of  this   State   that  in   its  judgment 
may  seem  best. 

4.  That    by   said   Assembly   Bill   No.    14    it   is   not   designed    to 
deprive  children  of  Indian,   Mongolian,   Chinese,   or  Japanese  des- 
cent   of    equal    school    privileges    and    opportunities,    but,    on    the 
contrary,   to  these  there  shall  be  given,  and  for  these  there  shall 
be  provided  the  same  privileges  and  opportunities  as  are  given  to 
and   provided    for   all    other   children. 

5.  That  Assembly  Bill   No.   14   contemplates   the   establishment 
and  maintenance   of  separate   schools   for   different   races,    but   all 
schools  so   established  and  maintained  shall  afford   equal  and   the 
same  facilities   for   instruction. 

6.  That  this  Assembly  recognize  it  to  be  a  duty  resting  upon 
the  State  to  furnish  to  children  of  Indian,  Mongolian,   Chinese,   or 
Japanese    descent    the    same    facilities    and    opportunities    as    are 
furnished  to  children  of  other  races  and  affirm  that  no  more  can  be 
required  and  that  nothing  different  is   contemplated  by  said  Act. 
That  said  Act  gives  to  children  of  Indian,  Mongolian,   Chinese,  or 
Japanese   descent   who   are   subjects   of   other   countries   the   same 
rights    and    privileges    as    are    given    to    native    born    citizens    of 
California,  and  no  power  has  the  right  to  demand  more.     That  this 
Assembly    is    disposed    to    accede    to    the    wishes    of    the    Federal 
Government  as  conveyed  to  us  by  the  Governor  of  this  State  and 
the    Speaker   of    this    Assembly,    but   while    doing    so    we    reaffirm 
and    reassert    that    the    subject    matter    of    Assembly    Bill    No.    14 
is  purely  and  exclusively  a  matter  of  State  concern,  falling  within 
the  reserve  powers  of  the  State,  and  violates  no  provision  of  the 
Federal   Constitution. 

7.  That  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly  that  said  bill  does 
not   conflict  with   the   treaty   existing  between   the  government   of 
the   United    States    and    the   government    of    Japan,    and    that   we 
recognize  the  authority  to  make  treaties  is  by  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, vested  in  the  President  and   Senate  of  the  United  States, 
we  affirm  that  the  right  to  administer  our  State  school  system  can 
not  be  controlled  by  treaty  made  by  the  President  and  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  nor  by  action  of  the  President  alone. 

8.  And  finally,   while  we   recognize   that  Assembly  Bill  No.    14 


XXX111 


is  drawn  and  could  be  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State  in 
full  conformity  with  the  powers  reserved  to  the  State  and 
vouchsafed  to  it  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  we  are  unwilling  to 
do  aught  which  may  disturb  the  relations  existing  between  this 
government  and  a  friendly  power,  and  for  this  reason  alone,  we 
recommend  that  Assembly  Bill  No.  14  be  reconsidered  and  with- 
drawn. 


DAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  AAAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 
month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


5EP20  1970 

SEP13B88 

FEB  2  e  tw 

,1  MwwsaMW  «a 

RECEIVED 

REG,  C1R.  tiQf  I"7"7o^             W 

MAY  2  3  1996 

•*  o  /  y\}£ 

RECEIVED 

CIRCULATION  DEPT. 

JUL  ^  o 

U                          CIRCULATION  DEPT. 
ttPTP       UH   1  Q  ife  
r;  AC3A2. 

JUN  Oti  199B 

jvi  ^ 

MAR  2n^anc  J"25* 

wo  IGC  MAR  1619^7 

i 

DRM'NO.  DD ^^M^o  •  77    UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


90810 

GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LI 


, «~  -A, 


